The Nigerian government has implemented mandatory drug testing for secondary and higher education students. Although the policy promises prevention and treatment, advocacy groups warn of the risks of exclusion and stigmatization, as well as a lack of rehabilitation resources. Could a policy meant to address adolescent drug use end up keeping young people out of school?
In Nigeria, starting the school year now comes with an additional requirement: taking a drug test. And it’s not exactly optional.
The federal government has introduced mandatory testing for students entering secondary schools and higher education institutions. The tests may also be repeated during the academic year and, if a student repeatedly tests positive, they could end up suspended to undergo treatment.
The measure is part of the new national guidelines against drug abuse and substance use in educational institutions, published by the Federal Ministry of Education and implemented in 2026.
According to the official narrative, the goal is to identify young people who need help at an early stage, prevent substance use problems and ensure safe educational environments. But there’s an issue: what happens when the system that is supposed to help students ends up keeping them out of school?
How Do Mandatory Drug Tests Work in Nigeria?
The new rules establish that students must undergo testing when they enter educational institutions. In secondary schools, periodic testing is also required, at least once per academic year.
The tests use urine samples to detect substances through their metabolites.
According to the official guidelines, when a student tests positive, an intervention procedure begins. First, they receive “counseling and assistance” within the institution. If they test positive again after that intervention, they must be referred to a professional. And if the student tests positive for a third time, they may be temporarily suspended to receive treatment and rehabilitation.
Students who refuse to comply with prescribed treatment or rehabilitation procedures may also be temporarily suspended until authorities determine that they are fit to return. But the rules do not clearly define what qualifies a student as fit to return.
At higher education institutions, returning may be conditional on presenting a medical certificate of fitness.
Testing can also come at a cost. The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) lists a fee of NGN 7,688 (nearly USD 6) for tests requested through its own application system, raising questions about the potential financial burden on families already struggling to cover education-related expenses.
A Policy That Promises Treatment, But Where Are the Resources?
In an investigation published by TalkingDrugs, journalist Ryan Hesketh reported on the experience of a student’s guardian after the student was removed from school following a positive drug test.
The experience was described as traumatic and as a violation of fundamental rights. According to the testimony, there was no adequate support during the period of exclusion, and the student lost access to educational tools, including their academic portal.
Henry Okiwu, a member of YouthRISE Nigeria, an organization that works with young people who use drugs, warned TalkingDrugs that these policies could hinder students’ access to education not only in the short term, but potentially for life.
Organizations are also questioning the capacity of the healthcare system to respond to the demand that the testing program could generate.
According to the Drug Harm Reduction Advocacy Network (DHRAN), Nigeria has 11 model treatment centers that have received capacity-building support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), with most located in major cities.
The organization noted that none of those centers had received training specifically focused on the treatment and rehabilitation of young people. In other words, the system contemplates suspending students so they can receive treatment, but it is not clear that such treatment is available to everyone who needs it.
Do Drug Tests in Schools Really Prevent Drug Use?
This debate is not exclusively Nigerian.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) opposes widespread drug testing in schools, citing a lack of strong evidence that such programs are effective.
A technical report published in Pediatrics explains that some programs found modest, short-term reductions in drug use, but sustained benefits have not been demonstrated. It also warns of possible negative consequences: erosion of trust between students and authorities, confidentiality concerns, stigmatization and sanctions resulting from inaccurate results.
But there is another fundamental distinction: a positive test result does not constitute a diagnosis of addiction.
A test can detect exposure to a substance, but it cannot, on its own, establish whether a person has a substance use disorder, assess their clinical status or determine what treatment they need.
The AAP recommends prioritizing educational strategies, professional counseling, brief interventions and access to specialized care rather than expanding indiscriminate testing programs.
The Government Defends Prevention While Organizations Warn About Exclusion
The government maintains that the program is intended as a preventive measure. In April, NDLEA Director Buba Marwa defended the testing program before student representatives and said its purpose was to protect young people, not punish them.
However, the disciplinary consequences contemplated in the guidelines are causing concern among harm reduction organizations. The broader context is also troubling: Nigeria has faced a serious education access crisis for years, with millions of children and adolescents out of school.
For DHRAN, suspending students for substance use could become an additional obstacle to continuing their education. The organization proposes a rights-based approach that combines support and harm reduction measures to address substance use problems without interrupting students’ education.
Preventing problematic substance use among teens is a legitimate goal, as is ensuring care for those who need it. But detecting substances is not the same as diagnosing an illness, and suspending students is not the same as providing them with treatment.
Perhaps the question should not simply be how to identify young people who use drugs, but what happens to them afterward. If a policy designed to help students also allows them to be suspended from school, could it end up creating another barrier to the education it is supposed to protect?
Photo by ProjectManhattan, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons // Edited with Canva
