A widening policy gap between medical and veterinary professionals is raising fresh concerns about the resilience of Nigeria’s public health system, following the Federal Government’s approval of a 65-year retirement age for selected health workers that does not explicitly extend to veterinary doctors and veterinary para-professionals.
The development has brought renewed attention to inconsistencies within Nigeria’s health and civil service frameworks, particularly the disconnect between long-standing parity policies and recent administrative decisions that appear to exclude a critical segment of the health workforce.
At the centre of the debate is a fundamental question of alignment: how a system that recognizes medical and veterinary professionals as equals in salary structures and service conditions can justify a divergence in retirement policy with far-reaching implications for national health security.
Policy Context and Emerging Concerns
The controversy stems from a circular issued on December 31, 2025, by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, which approved an increase in retirement age from 60 to 65 years for “skilled clinical health professionals in Federal Tertiary Hospitals and Centres.”
While the move was intended to retain experienced personnel within Nigeria’s healthcare system, its narrow institutional focus has raised concerns about exclusion, particularly for veterinary professionals whose roles are largely situated outside hospital environments.
This limitation has become more pronounced in light of earlier formal communications that advocated for a broader and more inclusive application of the policy.
Veterinary Association Pushes for Inclusion
Before the circular was issued, the Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association (NVMA) had formally appealed for the inclusion of veterinary doctors and veterinary para-professionals in the revised retirement framework.
In its communication, endorsed by the association’s leadership, the NVMA framed its request as a policy-consistent intervention grounded in national interest rather than sectoral agitation.
“We humbly write to request for the inclusion of Veterinary Doctors and Veterinary Paraprofessionals in the most recently Presidential approved retirement age of 65 years for Medical Doctors and other Health Workers,” the association stated.
The NVMA highlighted the already limited number of veterinary professionals in Nigeria, warning that maintaining the current retirement threshold could further weaken a workforce critical to disease prevention and response.
“The request… will help preserve and maintain the Veterinary workforce, grossly inadequate in the fight against zoonotic diseases,” the letter noted, referencing ongoing efforts such as anthrax vaccination campaigns.
One Health Imperative and Epidemiological Realities
Central to the association’s argument is Nigeria’s adoption of the “One Health” approach, which recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health systems.
Within this framework, veterinary professionals play a pivotal role in monitoring and controlling zoonotic diseases—many of which pose direct risks to human populations.
According to the NVMA, approximately 75 percent of emerging infectious diseases originate from animals, while 60 percent of infectious diseases affecting humans are zoonotic in nature.
The association pointed to collaborative responses involving veterinary and medical professionals in managing outbreaks such as Ebola, Lassa fever, rabies, avian influenza, monkeypox, COVID-19, and anthrax as evidence of this interdependence.
“Veterinary Doctors have become increasingly critical in gatekeeping public health and safety,” the association stated.
Ministry of Livestock Development Supports Parity
The NVMA’s position aligns with an earlier submission by the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development, which also advocated for the extension of the 65-year retirement age to veterinary professionals.
In its correspondence, endorsed by the ministry’s leadership, the ministry emphasized the strategic importance of retaining skilled veterinary personnel within the public sector to prevent premature loss of expertise.
“The request is essential to prevent the premature loss of scarce and highly trained veterinary personnel,” the ministry stated.
The ministry further anchored its position on the Federal Government’s Parity Circular of August 8, 1994, which established equivalence in salary structures and service conditions between medical and veterinary professionals under the CONMESS and CONHESS frameworks.
It argued that extending retirement age parity would not only be consistent with existing policy but would also strengthen national biosecurity and ensure continuity of technical expertise.
Structural Limitations of the Current Circular
Despite these submissions, the December 2025 circular adopted a narrower classification that limits the revised retirement age to clinical professionals working within Federal Tertiary Hospitals and Centres.
Although the document listed 26 eligible cadres—including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, radiographers, and physiotherapists—it did not include veterinary doctors or veterinary para-professionals.
The circular also explicitly excluded professionals working within ministries and extra-ministerial departments, effectively placing most veterinary personnel outside its scope.
This institutional delineation has become a key point of contention, given that veterinary services are predominantly delivered through field operations, regulatory functions, and livestock health systems rather than hospital-based settings.
Workforce Gaps and Public Health Risks
Beyond issues of professional equity, stakeholders have raised alarm over the broader implications for Nigeria’s public health and food security systems.
The NVMA has pointed to significant workforce shortages across states, noting that some states have only a few practicing veterinarians, while others face the risk of having none due to imminent retirements.
In addition, veterinary services are not consistently available across all 774 local government areas, creating gaps in disease surveillance and response capacity.
These challenges are further compounded by rapid population growth, increased urbanization, and heightened human-animal interactions, all of which elevate the risk of zoonotic disease transmission.
Within this context, veterinary professionals play a critical role not only in animal health but also in food security, outbreak prevention, biosecurity, and emergency response coordination.
“With the declaration of a State of Emergency on Food Security… the role of Veterinarians in securing our livestock has become most critical,” the association noted.
Policy Alignment and the Path Forward
The situation highlights a broader policy dilemma: how to reconcile an existing parity framework with a newly implemented, institution-specific retirement policy that does not fully reflect that parity.
While earlier government policies recognize veterinary and medical professionals as equals in terms of remuneration and service conditions, the current circular introduces a functional distinction that prioritizes hospital-based roles.
This divergence has prompted calls for administrative review and policy harmonization to ensure consistency and strengthen Nigeria’s overall health system.
Analysts note that aligning retirement policies with the One Health framework and established parity structures could enhance workforce stability, improve inter-sectoral coordination, and bolster national preparedness for emerging health threats.
Conclusion
As discussions continue, the issue remains one of policy coherence rather than confrontation. Both the Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association and the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development have framed their positions within the broader context of national interest, workforce sustainability, and public health security.
However, the existing disparity—rooted in administrative classification—carries implications that extend far beyond professional boundaries, touching on Nigeria’s health resilience, food systems, and biosecurity architecture.
Whether the government will move to address this gap remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that in an increasingly interconnected health landscape, aligning policies across human and animal health sectors is not just beneficial—it is essential for national stability and security.
