Follow Us on Google
By Chibuikem Diala
The controversy surrounding the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (NIHOTOUR) Act 2022 and the NIHOTOUR Regulations 2025 raises a much bigger question about the future of tourism governance in Nigeria.
My concern has always been that when regulation is driven more by revenue generation than by industry development, professional standards and service delivery, it becomes counterproductive. Nigeria needs a tourism governance framework built on proper separation of powers, clearly defined mandates and coordinated responsibilities among relevant agencies.
However, another dimension deserves serious attention: the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to move tourism and tourism-related matters to the Concurrent Legislative List.
Under the existing constitutional arrangement, matters not assigned to the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative Lists generally fall within the residual legislative competence of the states. The proposed amendment could fundamentally change this position by expressly empowering both federal and state governments to legislate on tourism.
This is where the real conversation should begin.
If tourism moves to the Concurrent List, what happens to the legal arguments currently being advanced against aspects of the NIHOTOUR and NTDA Acts?
One could reasonably argue that the amendment would strengthen the federal government’s constitutional basis for tourism regulation and provide NIHOTOUR with a stronger argument in defending aspects of its mandate. Whether it would ultimately validate the disputed provisions of the NIHOTOUR Act is another matter entirely.
Is the Concurrent List, therefore, the trump card NIHOTOUR may be waiting for in its legal battle?
It is a possibility the industry cannot afford to ignore.
However, strengthening the constitutional basis for federal legislation does not automatically validate every provision of an existing Act or resolve disputes over regulatory overreach.
This brings me to the State Houses of Assembly. Are our legislators, including members of the Committees on Culture and Tourism, fully aware of the implications of the amendment for their state tourism agencies, hospitality laws, licensing arrangements, inspection regimes and revenue structures? Or will they approve it without adequately examining its long-term consequences?
There is also the question of the independence and knowledge capacity of our State Commissioners for Tourism. Do they possess the requisite constitutional, legal and industry knowledge to objectively advise their governors and state legislatures on the far-reaching implications of this amendment? Or will political considerations overshadow independent professional judgment?
I ask this because tourism governance requires more than political appointments and administrative supervision. It requires a sound understanding of tourism economics, constitutional law, hospitality regulation, investment, institutional governance and the operational realities of the industry.
If commissioners are not adequately equipped to advise on these matters, or if their advice is driven primarily by political considerations rather than independent professional assessment, the states risk making decisions whose long-term consequences they may not fully appreciate.
The State Houses of Assembly must not rely solely on executive advice. They should engage independent legal experts and tourism professionals to interrogate the proposal. A constitutional amendment of this magnitude should not be approved simply because it is presented as good for tourism; the states must understand what they stand to gain, what they could lose, and the long-term implications for their regulatory powers and tourism institutions.
Equally important is the future of our existing institutional framework. The NIHOTOUR Act 2022, the NIHOTOUR Regulations 2025 and the Nigerian Tourism Development Authority (NTDA) Act 2022 are existing instruments. Their overlapping regulatory responsibilities have already raised concerns within the industry. HOMAL has also recently secured a High Court judgment against NIHOTOUR, with ₦10 million in costs reportedly awarded against the institute.
If the constitutional amendment passes, will the NIHOTOUR and NTDA Acts be reviewed and amended to reflect the new constitutional realities? Will their respective mandates be clearly defined to eliminate duplication in registration, inspections, professional licensing and compliance costs?
I am not opposed to placing tourism on the Concurrent Legislative List. National coordination and common standards have their merits. But concurrent jurisdiction must not become a licence for competing agencies to exercise overlapping powers. It should not be a tool to frustrate tourism businesses in Nigeria.
Tourism associations, professional bodies and other industry stakeholders must now speak out. They should engage their respective state governments and State Houses of Assembly, demand public consultations and ensure that meaningful discussions take place before decisions are made. The industry must help shape the terms of this proposed constitutional change, with clearly defined responsibilities and safeguards that protect businesses, encourage investment and advance the collective interest of the sector.
The objective should be a coherent framework in which federal and state authorities complement one another, encourage investment and support tourism development.
Before the states surrender, share or redefine any aspect of their legislative competence, they must understand precisely what they stand to gain, what they could lose and what safeguards are required.
Otherwise, we may discover too late that, in trying to resolve today’s regulatory dispute, we have constitutionally entrenched the conditions for tomorrow’s bigger one.
• Chibuikem Diala- Executive Director; International Hospitality, Tourism & Eco-sustainability Forum (IHTEF).
