Disagreement and contestation are not necessarily signs of a dysfunctional society. They are often natural features of a progressive society, where individuals and institutions may legitimately hold different perspectives, interests and interpretations. What matters is how we manage our differences and how we can transform them into opportunities for better understanding and better outcomes.

This article is, therefore, not intended to project any individual personality, institution or government agency, nor is it meant to undermine the legitimate role of any stakeholder. Rather, it is an attempt to consider the available options and, propose a constructive pathway for moving the industry forward. It is a reflection of my experience and understanding of the sector , and a sincere effort to contribute to resolving what has become an important professional and institutional imbroglio.

The objective is not to apportion blames , or take sides ,but to explore a solution; one that respects the law, recognizes legitimate stakeholder interests and places the long-term development of Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry above institutional contestation. This is particularly important because the issue before us is not merely an institutional disagreement; it concerns the future direction and competitiveness of an industry with significant implications for the Nigerian economy.

Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry is at a defining moment. Its potential to create jobs, stimulate enterprise, attract investment, earn foreign exchange and support economic diversification is enormous. That potential cannot be unlocked by investment alone. Nigeria also needs regulation that protects the public, raises professional standards and gives businesses opportunities to invest, operate and grow. This is why the current disagreement surrounding the implementation of the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (NIHOTOUR) Act 2022 should be of serious national concern.

The question is not whether Nigeria needs regulation. It does. However , the real question is how regulation can be exercised clearly and proportionately, while allowing professional bodies, industry associations, private enterprises and other public institutions to perform their legitimate roles without unnecessary duplication or conflict. Nigeria should not allow this moment to become another contest over institutional territory. It should become an opportunity to redesign how the sector works together.

The NIHOTOUR Act: What It Provides

The National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (Establishment) Act, 2022 is an existing federal law. It establishes NIHOTOUR and provides a statutory framework for the training, certification and registration of hospitality, travel and tourism personnel. The Act also assigns the Institute functions relating to professional development, standards and regulation within its statutory scope. There should, therefore , be no doubt that NIHOTOUR has a statutory mandate. That mandate must be respected. However, respect for the law does not mean that its implementation should be beyond scrutiny. Legitimate questions about interpretation, implementation, proportionality and regulatory overlap can be addressed through evidence, consultation and lawful processes.

The Act also provides a basis for cooperation with relevant organizations and stakeholders. This is important because effective regulation does not require every institution to operate in isolation. There is also a useful distinction in understanding the Institute’s regulatory role. NIHOTOUR’s current regulatory framework focuses on the registration, certification and professional verification of practitioners within the hospitality, travel and tourism sector. The distinction between professional regulation and the regulation of other aspects of business operations should ,therefore, be clearly understood and consistently applied.

FTAN’s Contestation

The concerns expressed by the Federation of Tourism Associations of Nigeria (FTAN) also deserve fair consideration. FTAN has raised concerns about aspects of the implementation of the NIHOTOUR Act and the consultation process with affected industry stakeholders. It has also expressed the need for engagement towards a more collaborative regulatory framework.

That distinction matters

Questioning aspects of implementation is not the same as rejecting regulation. Equally, raising legitimate industry concerns should not be interpreted as questioning the legitimacy of a statutory institution. NIHOTOUR has a legal mandate. FTAN has a representative role. Both realities can coexist.The challenge is to find the institutional arrangement that allows them to do so constructively.

Where the Stakeholders Diverge

The deeper issue is what professional regulation should reasonably cover and how its boundaries should relate to those of other regulatory institutions. Professional standards, certification, continuing development, quality assurance and consumer protection are indispensable to a credible tourism and hospitality industry. At the same time, regulation becomes problematic when businesses face uncertainty over which institution is responsible for a particular requirement or when different regulatory mandates appear to overlap.This is where the implementation of the 2025 Regulations has generated concerns among sections of the industry. Those concerns should not be dismissed, but neither should they automatically be treated as proof that regulation itself is wrong. Good regulation should be strong enough to protect the public, but proportionate enough to support legitimate enterprise.

A tourism operator should know who regulates what. An investor should be able to understand the compliance environment before committing capital. A small business should not face requirements designed without regard to its scale, capacity or risk.The objective should, therefore, be regulatory clarity, not regulatory competition.

The Economic Stakes

This debate extends beyond NIHOTOUR, FTAN and the interests of individual professional associations. It concerns the competitiveness of Nigeria’s tourism economy. The country needs a sector capable of attracting investment, creating employment, supporting entrepreneurs and expanding both domestic and international tourism. It requires confidence in the regulatory environment. Where businesses face overlapping responsibilities, multiple compliance requirements, uncertain approval processes or cumulative costs, the consequences may include higher operating expenses, delayed investment and barriers to formalization, particularly for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

The sector is also diverse

A multinational hotel, a medium-sized hotel, a neighbourhood restaurant, a small guesthouse and a travel enterprise do not have the same financial or administrative capacity. Regulation should ,therefore , be proportionate to risk and appropriate to the nature and scale of the enterprise. The answer is not deregulation. It is better regulation; regulation that raises professional standards while encouraging investment, innovation, competitiveness and sustainable enterprise.

From Contestation to Co-Design

This is where it is expected the conversation must now move. Nigeria should move from contestation to co- design. A significant development in this regard is the inauguration by NIHOTOUR of the National Committee on Industry Professional Bodies Recognition and Governance (NCIPBRG), chaired by Professor Wasiu A. Babalola. The Committee provides an important opportunity to address issues of professional recognition and governance and to consider how professional bodies can be better coordinated within a coherent industry framework.

Rather than viewing the Committee through the lens of institutional contestation, its work should be regarded as an opportunity for constructive engagement and the development of a more coherent professional governance framework. Irrespective of the individual who heads or chairs the Committee, the fundamental issue remains the need to resolve the concerns before the industry. Indeed, the fact that one of our own members is currently chairing the process should make constructive engagement even more meaningful. Rather than allowing the matter to degenerate into a stalemate, it would be more constructive for stakeholders to submit memoranda, present their concerns and provide evidence that can assist the Committee in arriving at balanced and workable recommendations.

The industry must move forward

As stakeholders in the sector, we are the focus of attention today, but we will not remain there forever. History and posterity will judge all of us; not merely by the positions we took, but by whether we helped to resolve the challenges confronting the industry and left behind a stronger , more equitable and more coherent professional governance system. Divergent opinions are natural in any healthy professional community. What will not serve the industry, however, are banter, accusations and counter-accusations that deepen divisions rather than resolve issues. Due cognizance should be taken of the fact that professional relationships often outlive particular appointments, administrations and institutional positions. While individual offices and mandates may change, professional careers can span decades and, in many cases, generations. Our paths will inevitably cross again. There is a need to ensure that as professionals , and stakeholders , we are guided by mutual respect, restraint and responsibility in our public utterances and actions, irrespective of our individual or institutional relationships. By co-design, I mean a process in which government, NIHOTOUR, FTAN, professional bodies, operators, educators, workers, investors and other relevant stakeholders contribute to identifying regulatory challenges and developing workable solutions within the law. At the centre of this approach should be institutional complementarity. NIHOTOUR should be enabled to exercise fully and confidently the responsibilities assigned to it by law, particularly in professional training, certification, registration, standards, quality assurance and the regulation of personnel within its statutory scope. At the same time, responsibilities assigned by law to other institutions should remain clearly within their respective frameworks. Where mandates intersect, the answer should be coordination rather than competition. Corporate incorporation, taxation, public health, immigration and broader corporate governance, for example, should continue to be administered within the legal frameworks applicable to those areas.

The goal is not institutional isolation

It is clear responsibility, coordinated action and a simpler regulatory experience for the industry.

A Practical Way Forward

First, strengthen the professional governance process already underway. The Babalola Committee should be given the opportunity to receive memoranda, engage stakeholders and examine competing perspectives before making its recommendations. Second, review areas of regulatory overlap. Where implementation reveals genuine questions of mandate, proportionality or compliance burden, they should be subjected to appropriate legal and policy review. Reviewing implementation is not an attack on NIHOTOUR; it is part of strengthening regulation. Third, adopt risk-based regulation. Compliance should reflect the nature, size and risk profile of businesses. High professional standards and practical compliance should not be treated as opposing objectives. Fourth, strengthen inter-agency coordination. Where responsibilities intersect, relevant institutions should work together so that businesses experience government as a coherent system rather than a collection of competing authorities. Fifth, institutionalise meaningful consultation. Stakeholders affected by significant regulatory changes should be engaged early enough for their views to influence implementation. Consultation does not require everybody to agree; it requires that affected interests are genuinely heard or entertained.

The Choice before Nigeria

The choice before Nigeria is not between NIHOTOUR and FTAN. It is not between regulation and enterprise. The real choice is between regulatory fragmentation and regulatory coherence. NIHOTOUR has a legitimate statutory role in professionalising Nigeria’s hospitality, travel and tourism sector. That role should be respected, properly understood and effectively implemented. FTAN and other industry associations equally have a legitimate role in representing operators and communicating industry concerns. Their participation should be regarded as an essential component of effective policy development, not as an obstacle to regulation.

The supervising Ministry also has a critical responsibility

It is to provide policy direction, encourage constructive dialogue and ensure that regulatory implementation advances the national interest. What Nigeria should avoid is allowing institutional disagreement to become institutional rivalry. The sector needs its institutions working with one another, not at cross-purposes.

Conclusion

Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry cannot afford a prolonged contest over institutional territory when it urgently needs investment, professionalism, innovation and growth.The NIHOTOUR Act is law, and its statutory mandate must be respected. At the same time, legitimate questions about implementation, proportionality, regulatory overlap and compliance should be addressed through evidence, consultation and lawful review . It is the view of this paper that neither deregulation nor unchecked regulation provides the answer. The answer is coherent regulation built around clearly defined responsibilities, professional excellence and meaningful stakeholder participation. The present disagreement should therefore be viewed not simply as a dispute to be settled, but as an opportunity to improve the governance of Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel sector. Nigeria does not have to choose between a strong NIHOTOUR and a vibrant private sector. It can have both. It does not have to choose between professional standards and investment. It can achieve both. What is required is a governance architecture in which statutory institutions exercise their mandates confidently, professional bodies contribute their expertise, industry associations are heard, and businesses operate within a framework that is clear, proportionate and predictable. The future should, therefore , not be defined by institutional competition, but by institutional complementarity; not by regulatory proliferation, but by professional excellence; and not by contestation, but by co-design.If Nigeria can make that transition, the present disagreement may become more than a dispute over regulation. It could become the catalyst for building a clearer, more coherent and investment-friendly governance framework for the country’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry.

By Olumide Olusola Metilelu (Ph.D)

Associate Professor, Tourism and Hospitality Management