By Racheal Abujah
WHEN the Ugandan-born wife of a Swiss diplomat was diagnosed with the Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus in Abuja, Nigeria’s first confirmed Ebola case in more than a decade, the news sent shivers across the nation.
Interestingly, the imported case was stabilised and, on October 26, was evacuated from Abuja to Switzerland for further medical care.
Expectedly, health authorities are intensifying efforts to contain the infection and investigate reports that Ebola patient confirmed in Nigeria may have crossed paths with the first Kenyan Ebola patient at a Ugandan airport.
The Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Muhammad Pate, confirmed that the patient had departed Nigeria alongside her husband, who remained asymptomatic.
Pate said the patient was clinically improved, stable, conscious and communicating, with her laboratory results approaching baseline.
He, however, cautioned that clinical improvement did not mean she was no longer infectious, adding that strict public health protocols had been observed during the evacuation.
The development marks a new phase in Nigeria’s response to the case, which was confirmed in the Federal Capital Territory on October 20.
While the evacuation provides access to further medical care, surveillance, contact tracing and investigations into the source of infection remain ongoing.
The case has also raised wider questions about the movement of Bundibugyo virus across the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria.
The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC), in its situation report dated October 24, said 53 contacts linked to the confirmed case had been identified, categorised and followed up, compared with the initial 44.
NCDC Director-General, Dr Jide Idris, said the 53 primary contacts included 44 people associated with the health facility where the patient received treatment and nine additional contacts.
The additional contacts included members of the patient’s household, her driver and chef, healthcare workers who attended to her at another facility, and personnel involved in collecting samples.
Idris said public health teams were also working to identify secondary contacts that might have been exposed through the primary contacts.
The agency said none of the identified contacts had tested positive or developed symptoms as of its Oct. 25 briefing.
Contacts are being monitored for 21 days after their last possible exposure, in line with the incubation period of the disease.
The NCDC also reported that a suspected case in Rivers, identified on October 23, tested negative for Ebola. A suspected case in the FCT also tested negative, according to the subsequent briefing.
Nigeria’s confirmed case therefore remained the only confirmed infection in the country in the information reviewed for this report.
The timeline of the patient’s illness raises important questions about the detection and notification process.
According to the NCDC, the 42-year-old woman arrived in Nigeria on October 3 after travelling from Uganda through Addis Ababa.
She developed symptoms on October 7 and presented at a private health facility on October 10. She attended another private facility on October 11, where she was admitted.
The NCDC was notified on October 19, and laboratory confirmation followed on October 20.
This means 13 days elapsed between symptom onset and confirmation, while eight days passed between her first reported healthcare presentation and notification of the NCDC.
Public health experts said that the dates warrant further examination, but do not by themselves establish when Ebola was first suspected or whether there was a failure to follow established protocols.
Meanwhile, Idris said healthcare workers recognised clinical features that raised concern, triggering an alert through the NCDC’s event-based surveillance system.
Following the alert, the agency said it engaged FCT health authorities and initiated investigations and laboratory testing.
The director-general said the detection demonstrated the importance of clinical vigilance and surveillance systems.
Nevertheless, questions remain about when the disease was first suspected, when samples were collected, how quickly results were processed and whether opportunities for earlier isolation were missed.
Experts said that these details were important for determining whether improvements were needed in clinical recognition, notification procedures and infection prevention.
The Nigerian case has become part of a wider investigation involving the DRC, Uganda and Kenya.
The Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak in the DRC was declared on May 15, 2026. Uganda subsequently reported cases before declaring its outbreak over on August 27.
Kenya confirmed its first case on October 6 in a man who had travelled from the DRC through Uganda. Eight additional cases were later identified among his contacts.
Nigeria confirmed its imported case on October 20 after the woman developed symptoms following her arrival from Uganda.
On October 23, Pate announced that genomic analysis conducted by the NCDC and the Institute of Genomics and Global Health at Redeemer’s University showed that the viruses identified in Nigeria and Kenya were genetically related.
The finding prompted further investigation into whether the cases shared an exposure or were connected through a transmission chain.
On October 26, Africa CDC Director-General, Jean Kaseya, told Reuters that a team of leading Ebola scientists would travel to Abuja to investigate the origin of Nigeria’s infection.
The team, to be led by Congolese Ebola expert Prof. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, is expected to examine additional genomic data and investigate the possible link between the Nigerian and Kenyan cases.
According to Reuters, both patients passed through Entebbe Airport in Uganda on October 3, with their flights reportedly about 40 minutes apart.
However, they did not depart from the same gate, and investigators have not established whether they met.
Kaseya said the Nigerian patient had indicated that she did not remember meeting the Kenyan patient.
Dr Emmanuel Agogo, an international global health consultant, said that the investigation would examine whether the infections resulted from direct contact, an indirect connection through another person or a shared source of exposure.
Beyond contact tracing, the Federal Government is working to strengthen the readiness of healthcare facilities.
A report published on October 26 said authorities were planning to identify and optimise Ebola treatment centres in states with designated ports of entry.
The University of Abuja Teaching Hospital had undergone a needs assessment and optimisation for isolation and treatment, while an infection prevention and control assessment was planned for Karu General Hospital.
The authorities were also working to establish referral mechanisms for suspected cases and strengthen surveillance at ports of entry.
Meanwhile, experts say the arrangement highlights the importance of social protection during disease outbreaks.
People are more likely to cooperate with public health measures when practical support is available to reduce the burden of isolation and quarantine.
The NCDC urged Nigerians to rely on verified information, cooperate with contact tracers and report symptoms promptly.
Analysts say public confidence is also linked to transparency in the use of emergency resources.
On June 9, 2026, President Bola Tinubu approved N10 billion for emergency preparedness and response, alongside the establishment of a Presidential Task Force on Ebola Virus Disease Preparedness and Emerging Public Health Threats.
The approval preceded confirmation of Nigeria’s imported case in October.
A health economist, Dr Abigail Banji, spoke on the importance of public trust in epidemic control.
Banji said that the government should distinguish this earlier preparedness allocation from any additional expenditure specifically associated with the current response.
“Clear reporting on disbursements and expenditure would help Nigerians understand how resources are being used to strengthen isolation facilities, laboratory capacity, surveillance and frontline support,’’ she said.
For Nigeria and its regional partners, the task is to establish how the infection reached the country and whether the Kenyan and Nigerian cases share a transmission chain.
The 2014 outbreak taught us that saving lives requires early detection, coordinated efforts, transparent leadership, and strong community cooperation.Moving forward, experts say Nigeria’s ongoing response relies heavily on continuous vigilance, data-driven decisions, and maintaining public trust while investigators work to resolve remaining questions. (NAN)
