.jpeg)
In a dramatic session on Tuesday, the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly openly rejected a motion seeking to halt the consumption and sale of dog meat across the state—a move that has since ignited intense debate among residents, animal-rights advocates, public-health experts, and cultural traditionalists.
The motion, sponsored by Hon. Uduak Ekpoufot, the member representing Etinan State Constituency, was expected to spark robust debate on the Assembly floor. Instead, it collapsed almost immediately—not for lack of content, but because no other lawmaker in the chamber was willing to second it, a required step before any motion can be deliberated upon.
The silence was deafening.
What unfolded in those few minutes—captured in a detailed report by Essien Nduese, media aide to Governor Umo Eno—revealed not just a procedural failure, but a deeper political, cultural, and economic dilemma simmering beneath the surface in Akwa Ibom State.
This investigation unpacks what really happened, why the lawmakers backed off, and what this means for public health, animal welfare, and the socio-cultural identity of the state.
A Motion Dead on Arrival: What Really Happened in the Chamber
When Hon. Ekpoufot rose to present his motion, the House momentarily fell silent. According to insiders, legislators already anticipated the controversy his proposal might trigger. Dog meat—known locally as “404”—has long been a staple in several communities in Akwa Ibom. It is intertwined with local culinary tradition, rural livelihoods, and even social identity.
Ekpoufot’s motion was meticulously prepared. It highlighted:
-
Cruel and inhumane slaughtering methods used in dog-meat markets
-
Unhygienic processing conditions
-
Severe public health risks associated with pathogens like rabies, salmonella, trichinella, and other zoonotic infections
-
The fact that several countries have banned dog meat due to safety and ethical concerns
His argument was straightforward: dog-meat consumption in its current state threatens both human health and animal welfare, and the state must act.
Yet despite his passionate presentation, no lawmaker stood up to second his motion.
Without a seconder, the Speaker had no choice—under Assembly rules—but to declare it dead.
But motions do not die in Nigeria’s legislative chambers without a story behind them.
Why Did the Lawmakers Refuse to Support It? An Inside Look
Our investigation reveals at least five factors that contributed to the motion’s failure, none of which were discussed publicly during the plenary.
1. Cultural and Traditional Sensitivities
Dog meat is deeply embedded in the culinary culture of many communities in Akwa Ibom. For years, it has been consumed as:
-
a delicacy
-
a perceived medicinal stimulant
-
a social bonding food during gatherings
Some lawmakers reportedly feared that supporting such a motion would portray them as being anti-culture, disconnected from local people, or attempting to “Westernize” local traditions.
A legislative aide told our correspondent:
“Many of them privately admitted that the motion made sense, especially the health argument. But they also feared backlash from their constituents who see dog meat as part of their identity.”
2. Political Survival and Fear of Public Backlash
Legislators in Akwa Ibom—like elsewhere—are acutely aware of political optics. Supporting a ban on a widely consumed local delicacy could easily be weaponized against them during elections.
One insider said:
“No lawmaker wants to give their opponents ammunition. Those who rely on rural votes considered it political suicide to back the motion.”
3. Economic Interests and the Dog-Meat Supply Chain
Dog-meat business is more entrenched than outsiders realize. Across markets in Uyo, Etinan, Ikot Ekpene, Eket and other areas, dog-meat joints drive:
-
local employment
-
food-vending businesses
-
informal market revenue
Banning dog meat would disrupt thousands of livelihoods, from hunters to market restaurant owners.
The Assembly may have been unwilling to start a conversation with such far-reaching economic implications.
4. Suspicion About the Timing of the Motion
Some lawmakers privately questioned why Ekpoufot decided to raise the issue now. Was there a hidden agenda? Was he responding to advocacy pressure or foreign influence? Or was it an early attempt to position himself as a reformist?
Political motives—real or imagined—likely made colleagues more cautious about aligning with him.
5. Fear of Setting a Precedent
If dog meat is banned, what next? Bushmeat? Palm wine? Local hunting traditions?
Lawmakers feared opening the door to a long list of future bans targeting culturally embedded practices.
Hon. Ekpoufot’s Arguments: A Deep Dive Into His Public Health Concerns
While the motion did not survive procedurally, the issues raised are far from trivial.
Ekpoufot highlighted the harrowing conditions under which dogs are slaughtered:
-
In roadside markets
-
Using crude methods such as strangulation, blunt force, or repeated blows
-
Often in open, unregulated environments
-
With little or no veterinary supervision
He warned that such practices expose consumers to dangerous pathogens capable of triggering outbreaks. Rabies alone—highly fatal once symptoms begin—poses a severe threat, especially in rural environments where medical response is slow.
Public health experts in the state say his concerns are valid.
A veterinary doctor in Uyo told our reporter:
“Dog meat is not the issue; it is the handling. The slaughtering environment is unsafe. The meat is often not inspected. Diseases can spread quickly. The Assembly should not have dismissed the motion so lightly.”
The Politics of Silence: Why No One Spoke After the Rejection
Once the Speaker declared the motion dead, the House swiftly moved to other business. No lawmaker attempted to address the collapse or request a re-evaluation.
This silence is telling.
It suggests an unspoken consensus:
The political cost of touching dog meat is simply too high right now.
Even those who agreed with Ekpoufot privately preferred not to go on record.
Implications for Public Health, Ethics, and State Governance
The decision to reject the motion without debate carries serious implications across multiple sectors.
1. Public Health Risks Remain Unaddressed
Dog-meat slaughterhouses will continue to operate under the same unregulated conditions. There will be no immediate legislative scrutiny, no new health protocols, and no attempt to regulate vendors.
The risk of rabies, parasite transmission, and severe food poisoning remains active.
2. Animal Welfare Concerns Remain Hidden
The cruelty associated with dog slaughter will continue, unchallenged and unregulated.
Animal-rights activists argue that even if a ban is unrealistic, humane slaughter regulations are necessary.
3. Lawmakers Signal a Reluctance to Engage on Sensitive Cultural Issues
By refusing to debate a motion simply because it is sensitive, the Assembly sends a message that certain public health or ethical issues may be considered politically untouchable.
4. The Status Quo Becomes the Default Policy
Even without a vote, the Assembly’s silence effectively upholds the continuation of dog-meat consumption across the state.
What Happens Next? Could This Motion Return?
Experts say the issue is not dead—only dormant.
There are three possible future paths:
1. A Modified Motion
The Assembly might consider regulating the dog-meat industry rather than banning it.
2. A Public Consultation Process
Town hall meetings or stakeholder engagement could help lawmakers understand citizens’ views before revisiting the motion.
3. Executive Intervention
The State Ministry of Health or Agriculture could independently introduce regulations without needing a full ban.
But for now, the issue remains frozen.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity or a Cultural Victory?
The rejection of Hon. Uduak Ekpoufot’s motion highlights one of Nigeria’s recurring legislative challenges: the tension between cultural identity and public health reform.
Was the Assembly right to preserve tradition?
Or did they abandon an important conversation about medical risk, sanitation, and humane treatment of animals?
One thing is certain—the discussion around dog-meat consumption in Akwa Ibom has now entered the public domain more forcefully than ever, and citizens are watching to see whether state leaders will eventually gather the courage to address it openly.