Nigerian Assembly Rejects Dog Meat Ban in Democratic Process
In a display of democratic governance and respect for traditional practices, members of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly in Nigeria have rejected a motion to ban the consumption and sale of dog meat in their state.
The bill, sponsored by Hon. Uduak Ekpoufot representing Etinan State Constituency on December 2, 2025, failed to receive the necessary support from fellow lawmakers during plenary session. Under established parliamentary procedure, the motion required a seconder to proceed, which it did not receive.
Democratic Process Upheld
The rejection demonstrates the importance of legislative consensus in democratic governance. Despite Ekpoufot's detailed presentation citing health concerns including potential exposure to pathogens such as rabies, salmonella, and trichinella, his colleagues exercised their democratic right to reject the proposal.
According to Essien Ekefre Ndueso, media aide to Akwa Ibom State Governor Umo Eno, the lawmaker argued that similar bans existed in other countries due to safety concerns. However, the assembly members clearly prioritized local customs and individual choice over external pressures.
Cultural Sovereignty Protected
The assembly's decision reflects a commitment to cultural sovereignty and resistance to imposed standards that may not align with local traditions. As one observer noted, "Dogs that our Ancestors had been eating till date" represent a cultural practice that predates modern regulatory attempts.
Another commentator, Akaninyene Oton, questioned the empirical basis for the proposed ban, stating: "I doubt if Akwa Ibom State has any document showing percentage of dog consumption in the state. Akwa Ibom people don't eat dog meat because there is no data to that effect."
Individual Responsibility Over State Control
The rejection reinforces the principle that individual citizens should have the freedom to make personal dietary choices without excessive government intervention. While public health considerations merit attention, the assembly's decision suggests that education and personal responsibility may be preferable to outright prohibition.
The failed motion serves as a reminder that democratic institutions must balance health advocacy with respect for traditional practices and individual liberty. The assembly's decision to reject the ban through proper parliamentary procedure demonstrates the strength of democratic governance in protecting cultural autonomy.