Nigeria’s proposed Infectious Disease Act is over 90 per cent plagiarised from Singapore’s law

A DRAFT legislation titled Infectious Disease Act, sponsored by Speaker of the House, Femi Gbajabiamila and submitted on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 28 for consideration has been found to be over 90 percent plagiarised from Singapore’s Infectious Disease Act of 1977.

The proposed legislation which aims at helping the Nigerian government coordinate responses to infectious disease outbreaks such as Lassa Fever and Coronavirus infection is a 43-page draft document copied in its entirety from Singapore – a country with a legacy of authoritarian rule.

At the time the Infectious Disease Act was enacted, Singapore was a one-party state. Though Nigeria operates a democratic system of government, copying a law of an authoritarian state such as Singapore is a contradiction of its republican status.

Abdul Mahmud, barrister and managing counsel of Ephesis Lex Law Firm deplores the idea of copying the law of another sovereignty verbatim.

It is offensive to steal laws properly passed by other parliaments of the world and lawmakers who subscribe to such act can be accused of plagiarism, he told The ICIR in an interview.

“There’s a fundamental problem of poverty of thinking and creativity which allows our legislators to go borrowing and stealing laws from other countries,” he said.

Plagiarism

Asides from the title of the draft legislation: Infectious Disease Act which was copied verbatim, parts one to five of the Nigerian Act containing 63 sections were all lifted from the Singaporean law word-for-word. The exception was the use of ‘Director’ which is replaced with ‘Director-General’ and mentioned over 100 times throughout the document.

For instance, in part one, under the subtitle: Administration, the proposed Nigerian draft bill reads: “Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Director-General of Nigerian Centre for Disease Control shall, subject to any general or special directions of the Minister, be responsible for the administration of this Act.”

In the Singaporean version, it reads: “Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Director shall, subject to any general or special directions of the Minister, be responsible for the administration of Parts III, IV and VI.”

In part two of the Nigerian bill which stands as part three in the Singaporean legislation, Section four (1) reads: “Every medical practitioner who has reason to believe or suspect that any person attended or treated by him is suffering from a prescribed infectious disease or is a carrier of that disease shall notify the Director-General within the prescribed time and in such form or manner as the Director-General may require.”

In the original document section, section six reads: “Every medical practitioner who has reason to believe or suspect that any person attended or treated by him is suffering from an infectious disease or is a carrier of that disease shall notify the Director within the prescribed time and in such form or manner as the Director may require.”

This reproduction is noticed in the entire document.

READ MORE: https://www.icirnigeria.org/nigerias-proposed-infectious-disease-act-is-over-90-per-cent-plagiarised-from-singapore-law/

Hmmm

If our president plagiarize just speeches then it's our NASS who're just rubberstamp stooges you expect something different.This is the most useless & senseless regime.God save Nigeria.

What do you expect, you can't give what you don't have

Very bad.
Its criminal act.

NASS

Who do Nigerians this wicked thing?

Very lazy bunch.. But yet d Nigerians are more busy with so called forceful vaccinations.. Seriously dis pandemic has proven dat Education does not guarantee d use of common sense

This is what happen when you have followers and supporters that are blind and sentimental.
Anything they do is acceptable to them!
Nigerians still have a long way to go.

Mumus don rule our naija

Hmm mm.....speechless

Same way they dubbed the social media regulatory bill from somewhere else.

There's nothing wrong in looking at the laws of another society in a bid to fine-tune it to the desires of your society, but then plagiarism is a fraudulent act anywhere in the world.

What a global shame.....


Our rubber stamp senators will always sign anything to please the vegetable.....



Shame catch me by force.....

So far it was thoroughly scrutinize and had our peculiar situation well considered, then nothing wrong with it at all.

Find time to read Lee Kuan Yew's "From third world to First", the master himself said 95% of Singapore's developmental policies were copied from UK, USA and Japan.

It's economical and time saving to copy sound policies from a well established societies, but the problem with Nigeria is usually the lack of implementation with genuine interest.

If person talk now, them go say na hate speech

The OP is ignorant. Copying laws, verbatim or not, and domesticating same is an international best practice.


Majority of the laws in Nigeria and other climes were copied and domesticated to reflect national peculiarities.

Acidosis:

The OP is ignorant. Copying laws, verbatim or not, and domesticating same is an international best practice.


Majority of the laws in Nigeria and other climes were copied and domesticated to reflect national peculiarities.

I was having a discussion with a couple of lawyer friends over this, they made me understand that not citing/referencing the source is the crime.

I shared same thought as you because I've known the country's constitution was copied from the US and British.