Cover StoryDevelopmentEconomyFinance

Ethical Health Finance Has Emerged As A Compelling and Distinctly Nigerian Response to a Long-standing National Challenge – Dr. Usman Gwarzo

5 Mins read

Nigeria’s healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads. Despite decades of policy reforms, donor interventions, and repeated commitments to Universal Health Coverage, millions of Nigerians still face the grim reality of paying for healthcare from their own pockets. For many families, a single illness can wipe out savings, disrupt livelihoods, or push households permanently into poverty. Public hospitals struggle with inadequate funding, health insurance coverage remains limited, and donor-driven programmes, though valuable, are often short-term and unpredictable. The result is a fragile system where access to quality healthcare is too often determined by income, geography, or sheer luck.

Against this backdrop, new thinking around healthcare financing has become not just desirable but urgent. Increasingly, policymakers, development partners, and scholars are recognising that government funding and conventional insurance mechanisms alone cannot close Nigeria’s enormous health financing gap. There is a growing need for locally grounded, culturally legitimate, and sustainable financing models that empower communities and restore dignity to healthcare access.

It is within this context that Ethical Health Finance and the Lafiya Programme have emerged as a compelling and distinctly Nigerian response to a long-standing national challenge. Anchored in community ownership and rooted in long-established ethical and faith-based endowment traditions, the model seeks to mobilise resources that already exist within society but have remained largely untapped for health.

By transforming Zakat, Waqf, Christian endowments, and other ethical philanthropic instruments into structured, transparent mechanisms for healthcare funding, the Lafiya Programme is redefining how communities participate in financing their own wellbeing.
In this interview, the Managing Editor, Time Nigeria Magazine, Abdulrahman Aliagan among other Journalists speaks with key drivers of the initiative, including Dr. Usman Gwarzo,  Team Leader of Lafiya Programme who is at the forefront of Ethical Health Finance implementation. He offers rare insights into the structural weaknesses of Nigeria’s health financing system, the philosophy behind Ethical Health Finance, the practical lessons from community-level implementation, and the growing national interest in scaling the model. His perspective reveal how trust, ethics, and local ownership may hold the key to rewriting Nigeria’s healthcare funding story—from the grassroots upward. Enjoy!

Nigeria’s healthcare system is often described as being in a financing crisis. From your perspective, what exactly is the problem with how healthcare is funded in the country?

The problem is both structural and systemic. Nigeria’s healthcare system is chronically underfunded relative to its population size and disease burden. Government budgetary allocations to health remain far below the Abuja Declaration target of 15 percent, and what is allocated is often fragmented, inefficiently spent, or delayed. As a result, most Nigerians pay for healthcare directly from their pockets.
This heavy reliance on out-of-pocket spending exposes families to catastrophic health expenditure.

People sell assets, borrow money, or resort to public fundraising to pay hospital bills. For many, illness becomes a pathway to poverty. Donor funding, while helpful, is unpredictable, project-based, and not designed to be permanent. Health insurance coverage is also still very low. When you combine all these factors, you have a fragile financing system that cannot sustainably support Universal Health Coverage.

Is this what led to the creation of the Lafiya Programme?

Yes, very much so. The Lafiya Programme was launched in February 2022 with support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), building on lessons from Nigeria’s COVID-19 response. We deliberately designed it as an upstream, adaptive, and flexible programme. Rather than focusing on short-term service delivery, Lafiya addresses systemic bottlenecks that undermine Universal Health Coverage.

These include weak governance, poor institutionalisation, inadequate healthcare financing, limited use of data for decision-making, and emerging health security threats linked to climate change and population growth. From the beginning, it became clear to us that without solving the financing challenge, progress in other areas would be limited.

At what point did Ethical Health Finance enter the picture?

As we worked with federal, state, and local governments to strengthen public financing through planning, budget tracking, expenditure analysis, and optimisation of the Basic Healthcare Provision Fund, we realised something important: public financing alone will not close Nigeria’s health funding gap.

We therefore began to explore alternative financing pathways that are locally rooted, culturally legitimate, and sustainable. Rather than inventing something entirely new, we adopted what I describe as an “opportunistic” approach. We looked for low-hanging fruits that already existed within Nigerian communities. That was how Ethical Health Finance emerged.

What exactly is Ethical Health Finance, and how does it work?

Ethical Health Finance is a community-driven health financing model that leverages faith-based and ethical philanthropic instruments such as Zakat, Waqf, and Christian endowments to support healthcare. These instruments have existed for centuries and are deeply trusted by communities, especially in Northern Nigeria.

Historically, endowments funded education, housing, and social welfare, even in institutions like Harvard, Yale, and universities in Malaysia and Indonesia. Health, however, was largely neglected.
What we did was to adapt these ethical resources—without distorting their religious foundations—into a structured, transparent financing mechanism for healthcare. We worked through Emirate councils, Islamic and Christian religious leaders, and community structures to institutionalise this approach.

How do communities participate in this model?

Communities are not passive recipients. They are the owners of the process. Each participating community conducts a needs assessment to identify its priority health challenges. This could be shortages of health workers, lack of infrastructure, poor drug availability, weak supervision, or poor service quality.

Based on these priorities, a financing and implementation plan is developed locally. Funds are mobilised through donations, crowdfunding, and community launches. Importantly, not all funds are spent immediately. Communities adopt investment models—often using a 40:60 formula—where part of the money addresses urgent needs while the larger share is invested to generate long-term returns.

In some communities, this has led to the establishment of health-linked social enterprises such as community pharmacies that provide subsidised medicines and generate income to sustain health interventions.

How far has this initiative gone so far?

Within just three years, Ethical Health Finance expanded from 12 Local Government Areas to 138 LGAs across five states. Communities mobilised over ₦2 billion in Zakat and Waqf contributions in 2025 alone, both in cash and in kind.

What is particularly encouraging is that when communities raise their own resources, they become more invested in governance and accountability. They ask questions, monitor performance, and demand better services. That grassroots accountability is a major strength of this model.

How does this initiative align with national health policy?

It complements national efforts. It does not replace government funding or health insurance. Instead, it fills critical gaps and reduces catastrophic health expenditure. It strengthens community ownership and supports Universal Health Coverage from the bottom up.
That is why the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the National Health Insurance Authority, and development partners like the World Bank have all shown strong interest.

What was achieved at the recent Lafiya Programme Ethical Health Finance Workshop in Abuja?

The three-day workshop brought together policymakers, academics, civil society, faith-based actors, and development partners. We finalised key Ethical Health Finance knowledge materials, adopted a national logo, co-created a scale-up plan, and established a National Ethical Health Financing Technical Working Group.
There was a strong consensus that this model should be scaled nationally.

Finally, what does Ethical Health Finance mean for Nigeria’s future?

It means that Nigerians no longer have to wait for donors or government alone to solve their health financing problems. It shows that communities are not resource-poor; they are structure-poor.
Ethical Health Finance offers a Nigerian solution to a Nigerian challenge—one rooted in trust, ethics, community ownership, and sustainability. If scaled properly, it can fundamentally change how healthcare is financed in this country.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com