The Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly has declined a motion seeking to prohibit the sale and consumption of dog meat across the state, a long-standing culinary practice embedded in several local communities. The motion, introduced during Tuesday’s plenary by Uduak Ekpoufot, who represents the Etinan State Constituency, failed after it received no seconder, a mandatory legislative requirement before any debate can proceed. Consequently, the Speaker ruled the motion rejected, bringing the proposal to an abrupt end.
Details of the plenary were shared by Essien Nduese, media aide to Governor Umo Eno, through a Facebook post that has since generated significant engagement and debate among residents.
Sponsor Cites Health Risks and Animal Cruelty
Before its dismissal, Mr. Ekpoufot had urged his colleagues to consider the public health implications associated with dog meat consumption, noting that several studies have linked poorly handled dog meat to diseases such as rabies, salmonella, trichinella, and other life-threatening pathogens. He warned that many slaughter points in the state failed to meet basic hygiene standards, putting consumers at risk of infections that could spread rapidly in communities.
He also condemned the methods used in the slaughter and processing of dogs, describing them as inhumane and inconsistent with global animal welfare standards. The lawmaker argued that a prohibition would not only safeguard public health but also align Akwa Ibom with international practices that discourage dog meat consumption.
Despite his arguments, the motion fell flat. No lawmaker stood in support, leaving the proposal without the needed seconder, a development that immediately compelled the Speaker to strike it out.
Cultural Practice Remains Unregulated
With the collapse of the motion, dog meat consumption in Akwa Ibom remains unregulated. The state, like many parts of Nigeria, has a long history of dog meat being consumed as a delicacy. It is particularly common in local joints and markets across Etinan, Oron, Ibeno, and other areas.
The debate is not new. Earlier this year, wildlife expert Dr. Edem Eniang told PREMIUM TIMES that dog meat consumption is more prevalent among Nigerian women, explaining that some believe it improves skin texture and complexion. He cited the work of zoologist Dr. Richard King, who previously highlighted the trend during an academic lecture.
Dr. Eniang also raised alarm over the rising demand for dog meat, which has led to scarcity and the theft of domestic dogs in some communities. He recounted incidents in Ibeno and Oron where pet dogs, including a nursing mother dog, were stolen, slaughtered, and consumed, leaving behind helpless puppies.
Although Akwa Ibom is widely regarded as one of the key hotspots of dog meat consumption in southern Nigeria, Dr. Eniang ranked Nike in Enugu State as the leading consumer, followed by Plateau State and then Akwa Ibom. This ranking was corroborated by a PREMIUM TIMES reporter in Enugu, who confirmed that many residents in the Nike area believe dog meat offers medicinal benefits and is used for strengthening the body.
Economic Hardship Fuels Consumption
According to Dr. Eniang, banning dog meat in Nigeria would be nearly impossible under present economic conditions. He argued that many residents depend on dog meat as an affordable source of protein due to the rising cost of alternatives such as fish, poultry, and beef. In his view, any enforcement effort would likely fail unless government provides cheaper protein substitutes.
“The economic reality leaves people with few options,” he said. “If the government is serious about regulating or banning dog meat, it must first ensure that citizens have access to affordable protein sources.”
Public Reaction: Outrage, Mockery, and Strong Opinions
The rejection of the motion has sparked a wave of reactions across social media, with many residents questioning the priorities of their elected representatives. Facebook, in particular, has become the hub of commentary, with hundreds expressing frustration, amusement, or relief depending on their stance on dog meat consumption.
For some residents, the motion was needless at a time when the state grapples with more pressing issues, including unemployment, inflation, poor infrastructure, and insecurity.
“How can a lawmaker, amid the numerous challenges facing Akwa Ibom people, prioritise sponsoring a motion to ban the consumption of dog meat?” a Facebook user, Vincent Aluu, wrote. His sentiment reflects the views of many who believe the legislature should focus on economic development, job creation, and healthcare.
Others celebrated the rejection as a “victory for the masses,” especially those who see dog meat as an integral part of their cultural heritage. Some argued that the government should not interfere with dietary choices, particularly traditional ones.
Still, a different segment of the population commended Mr. Ekpoufot for raising public health concerns, insisting that the state can no longer ignore the risks associated with unregulated dog slaughter and consumption. They urged the government to, at the very least, introduce hygiene and veterinary control measures to prevent the spread of diseases.
A Debate Far from Over
While the motion has formally failed, analysts say the conversation around dog meat consumption in Akwa Ibom and Nigeria at large is far from settled. The issue sits at a complex intersection of culture, public health, ethics, and economics. As other countries adopt stricter regulations or outright bans on dog meat, Nigeria faces increasing pressure to re-examine its own practices.
Public health advocates continue to warn that the country risks outbreaks of zoonotic diseases if the trade remains unregulated. Animal rights groups also insist that the brutal methods used in the trade violate global ethical standards.
For now, however, the Akwa Ibom House of Assembly has decided that the matter does not warrant legislative intervention. Dog meat consumption will continue unregulated in the state, and the lawmakers’ stance has left the populace divided along cultural, ethical, and economic lines.
As debates continue, the rejection of the motion reflects broader questions about legislative priorities and the balance between cultural practices and modern public health considerations.
