Disease Surveillance Is Nigeria’s First Line of Defence — But Is the Health System Ready?

Public health emergencies rarely arrive without warning. More often, the difference between a contained outbreak and a national crisis lies in how quickly authorities detect the threat and how effectively institutions respond.

That is why the growing call from epidemiologists for stronger disease surveillance in Nigeria deserves attention beyond the confines of a professional conference. It speaks directly to the country's ability to protect lives in an increasingly unpredictable global health environment.

Public health experts, researchers, policymakers, epidemiologists, and development partners gathered in Calabar, Cross River State, on Friday for the 12th Annual National Conference of the Epidemiological Society of Nigeria.

The conference, themed “Strengthening Epidemiological Resilience in Nigeria: Addressing Emerging and Re-emerging Health Challenges,” focused on improving the country’s preparedness for disease outbreaks and public health emergencies.

Speaking at the event, the National President of the Epidemiological Society of Nigeria, Dr. Matthew Ashikeni, stressed the need for stronger disease surveillance systems capable of enabling early detection and rapid response to emerging health threats.

Ashikeni argued that effective epidemiological resilience depends on robust surveillance mechanisms, improved sanitation, stronger hygiene practices, continuous professional training, and evidence-based public health policies.

Representatives of the Cross River State Government, including Commissioner for Health Dr. Henry Ayuk and Director General of Primary Healthcare Dr. Vivian Otu, highlighted the state's investments in healthcare infrastructure, disease surveillance, health insurance coverage, immunisation programmes, and outreach services to remote communities.

Representing the World Health Organisation, Dr. Rebecca Olatunde also urged stakeholders to sustain advocacy and investment in disease surveillance systems.

The conference arrives at a time when disease surveillance has become one of the most important — yet often overlooked — pillars of national security.

Nigeria has spent years responding to recurring outbreaks ranging from cholera and Lassa fever to concerns over Ebola and other infectious diseases. Each outbreak raises familiar questions about preparedness, coordination, funding, and public awareness.

The experts gathered in Calabar appear to be making a broader argument: that resilience is not measured by how governments react after an outbreak begins, but by how effectively they identify risks before they escalate.

This shift in thinking reflects a growing global consensus. Modern public health increasingly prioritises prevention, data collection, rapid reporting, and community-level monitoring rather than relying solely on emergency responses once infections have already spread.

For Nigeria, where population growth, urbanisation, climate pressures, and healthcare inequalities create additional vulnerabilities, surveillance systems may be just as important as hospitals and treatment centres.

From the perspective of public health officials and epidemiologists, the solution is clear: stronger surveillance networks, improved reporting systems, and sustained investment in healthcare infrastructure can significantly reduce the impact of future outbreaks.

Government representatives point to ongoing investments in primary healthcare, immunisation programmes, and outreach services as evidence that progress is being made. Cross River State, for example, highlights its efforts to deliver vaccines and essential medicines to hard-to-reach communities.

However, critics may argue that discussions about preparedness often outpace implementation. Across many parts of Nigeria, healthcare facilities continue to face staffing shortages, inadequate funding, and logistical challenges. For some observers, the real test is whether surveillance recommendations translate into measurable improvements at local government and community levels.

The debate is therefore not about whether disease surveillance matters. It is about whether existing political commitment and financial resources are sufficient to achieve the level of preparedness experts believe is necessary.

The implications extend far beyond the healthcare sector.

Effective disease surveillance can help reduce mortality rates, lower healthcare costs, protect economic activity, and strengthen public confidence during health emergencies. Businesses, schools, transport systems, and local economies all benefit when outbreaks are identified and controlled quickly.

Conversely, weak surveillance systems can allow diseases to spread unnoticed, increasing the cost of response efforts and placing additional strain on already stretched healthcare resources.

For Nigeria, which continues to pursue Universal Health Coverage while managing competing economic and developmental priorities, investments in surveillance may prove to be among the most cost-effective health interventions available.

The challenge will be maintaining momentum after conferences end and ensuring recommendations become operational realities.

The message emerging from Calabar is not merely about disease outbreaks. It is about preparedness, governance, and the capacity of institutions to anticipate crises before they become emergencies.

Ultimately, the question remains whether Nigeria can move from reacting to health threats to consistently staying ahead of them. What happens next will define not only the country's epidemiological resilience but also the public's confidence in its health system.