A Review Of The National Intellectual Property Policy And Strategy (NIPPS)

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a master sculptor in the heart of Lagos who pours his/her soul into creating a distinctive piece, only to have it later replicated, distributed, and commercially exploited without his/her permission. This familiar experience sits at the centre of Intellectual Property (IP), which encompasses creations of the mind such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images. ¹

IP serves as the umbrella concept for these intangible creations. At the same time, the associated IP Rights (IPR), including patents, copyrights, and trademarks, give creators the legal authority to control the use of their works. ² . These creations, when properly recognised and protected, transform into IP assets, carrying economic and pecuniary value to the creator and capable of contributing meaningfully to national development. ³

Despite Nigeria's immense creative and innovative capacity, the nation grapples with widespread piracy, an outdated legal and institutional IP framework, and weak utilisation and commercialisation practices. ⁴ It was against this backdrop that the Federal Government, in collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), developed the National Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy (NIPPS) (the ''Policy''), which was approved by the Federal Executive Council on the 6th November, 2025 and was officially unveiled and presented to the public on 17th December, 2025⁵ , aimed at repositioning Nigeria for competitiveness within the global knowledge economy6 .

Before crafting the policy, the government conducted a two‑phase process: first, a Situational Analysis, followed by the Development of the National IP Strategy. ⁷ These phases ensured that the Policy emerged from an evidence‑based assessment of Nigeria's IP ecosystem.

This article reviews the key components of the Policy, including the strategic objectives, implementation plans, underlying issues identified, and proposed strategies for addressing them.

Legal Framework for IP Protection8

Nigeria's IP regime has long faced challenges that the Policy seeks to address. The situational analysis identified the core issue as the existence of outdated IP laws that are fundamentally inadequate for a modern knowledge economy.

a. The Copyright Act governs the protection of literary, musical, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and related rights, providing the framework for authors' rights, ownership, and enforcement. The limitation of the old Copyright Act lies in inadequate protection against modern digital and online dissemination. Hence, the Policy acknowledges Nigeria's recent progress in copyright reform, particularly the enactment of the Copyright Act 2022 ⁹ , which repealed the Copyright Act 1988 and introduced modern safeguards addressing digital piracy, technological protection measures, online exploitation, and expanded enforcement powers.

b. The Trade Marks Act 1967¹⁰ regulates the registration and protection of trademarks and sets procedures for filing, examination, opposition, renewal, and infringement. However, being decades old, it does not adequately recognise non-traditional marks such as sound, scent, or motion marks and is illequipped to address challenges arising from e-commerce and digital marketplaces.

c. The Patents and Designs Act 1970¹¹ provides the legal framework for patents and industrial designs but contains significant gaps in its treatment of biotechnological inventions, softwarerelated innovations, and Utility Models, which are particularly important for incremental innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Beyond these statutory limitations, the Policy identifies the absence of sui generis protection for several economically significant categories of intellectual property, including Geographical Indications (GIs), Trade Secrets, Databases, and Integrated Circuit Layout Designs, leaving valuable intangible assets outside the scope of formal legal protection and limiting their effective exploitation

The Policy also recognises the growing convergence between intellectual property protection and data protection frameworks, particularly in technology-driven and dataintensive sectors such as software development, digital platforms, and emerging technologies, underscoring the need for coherence between IP regimes and Nigeria's data protection framework. In response to these challenges, the Policy seeks to strengthen the legal framework governing patents, industrial designs, and trademarks through a combination of legislative and policy reforms. These include reviewing and amending existing IP legislation to meet the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and reflect emerging trends and best practices; developing and enacting legislation to cover currently unprotected and emerging IP subject matters; and domesticating relevant international treaties and agreements in a manner that reflects Nigeria's developmental priorities and stakeholder interests.

The implementation plan further outlines concrete actions such as comprehensive legislative reviews of the principal IP statutes, the enactment of new laws for unprotected rights (including GIs and Trade Secrets), the fasttracking of treaty domestication, and the possible consolidation of enforcement regulations into a dedicated legislative framework to support more effective and coordinated IP enforcement.

Institutional Framework for IP Administration & Management¹²

One of the main observations in the Policy is that the administration of intellectual property in Nigeria is divided among several bodies, including the Patent and Designs Registry, the Trade Marks Registry (both under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment), and the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), which can affect efficiency and coordination. This division has contributed to slower processing times, limited coordination of policy direction, and operational challenges arising from constrained funding, staffing shortages, and restricted access to a centralised IP database. Notably, there is currently no single institution with an overarching mandate to oversee and coordinate all IP regimes in Nigeria.

To address these challenges, the Policy aims to strengthen the institutional framework for the administration and management of intellectual property rights. Its proposed strategy involves, first, streamlining and digitisings administrative processes and enhancing the capacity of existing IP offices; second, conducting a feasibility study for the consolidation of the Industrial Property Registries (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks) into a single, more efficient administrative body, such as the proposed Nigerian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) and third, proposing the establishment of a Nigerian Intellectual Property Commission (NIPC) as a central, high-level coordinating body to provide strategic oversight, harmonise the activities of existing IP institutions, and coordinate the implementation and monitoring of the NIPPS

The Policy proposes such consolidation but does not elaborate on the legal and administrative requirements to implement it. Transitioning the Patents and Designs Registry and the Trade Marks Registry from their current ministerial oversight under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (MITI) into a unified institutional structure would raise significant legal, jurisdictional and governance issues. For example, without legislative amendments, the proposed unified body, NIPO, could face conflicts of statutory authority, as the existing Patents and Designs Act and Trade Marks Act vest registration powers in registrars operating under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, raising the risk of overlapping mandates and uncertainty as to the legal validity of registrations issued by a new consolidated institution. Therefore, addressing these issues would require a clear legislative mandate either through the enactment of a new statute or substantial amendments to existing laws, together with public service and administrative reforms.

The proposed implementation actions under the Policy include developing a plan for automating IP registration and filing systems as a short-term goal, consolidating the formal and substantive examination processes for patents, and strengthening the human resource capacities of the existing IP offices.

Generation & Protection of IP Assets¹³

The Policy highlights the relatively low national output of formally protected IP and the limited recognition by innovators and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) of their intangible assets as commercial property. Creators often do not register rights such as patents, industrial designs, or trademarks due to procedural complexity, cost considerations, and a general lack of awareness, leaving many creations unprotected and constraining overall innovation output. This situation is further compounded by limited mechanisms to incentivise researchers, which contributes to the underutilization of patent information for further research and development (R&D).

The Policy's objective in this regard is to enhance the generation and protection of intellectual property rights by fostering a culture in which IP is valued, registered, and actively utilised. To achieve this, the primary strategies include increasing funding for R&D and innovation in both academia and industry and promoting the recognition and use of IP in the career progression of researchers. Implementation actions focus on capacity building within research institutions, including supporting universities and other research bodies to establish or update IP policies and encouraging greater use of public patent information systems for research and competitive intelligence, particularly as a shortterm goal.

Technology Transfer & Utilisation of Intellectual Property¹⁴

The Policy acknowledges that Nigeria's utilisation of IP is relatively weak, with protected works often failing to reach the market. A key challenge is the absence of mechanisms for valuing IP for financial purposes, which limits its acceptance as collateral and constrains access to finance. This challenge is further compounded by limited institutional capacity and support for technology transfers, which inhibits the translation of protected IP into marketable products.

The primary institution identified by the Policy for enhancement is the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP)¹⁵ , whose core mandate is the mandatory registration and regulation of technology transfer agreements involving foreign currency, foreign technical expertise, or imported technology, including agreements relating to trademarks and patented inventions. However, NOTAP's statutory focus has historically been on regulating the inflow of foreign technology rather than facilitating the valuation and monetisation of local intellectual property assets, thereby presenting a legal and structural barrier to the effective exploitation of purely indigenous IP.

The Policy seeks to strengthen capacity and institutional support for technology transfer and the use of intellectual property rights by proposing the development of a national framework for IP value realisation and creating a framework to promote the use of IP as collateral while simultaneously enhancing NOTAP's capacity to drive these initiatives effectively

Most importantly, achieving these objectives would require a legislative amendment to the NOTAP Act to recalibrate and expand NOTAP's mandate beyond its traditional regulatory focus on foreign technology inflows, thereby enabling it to actively support the valuation and economic deployment of indigenous intellectual property assets.¹⁶

The Policy further contemplates closer engagement with financial institutions, development finance institutions, and capital market stakeholders to facilitate the acceptance of valued intellectual property assets as bankable collateral and to unlock IP-backed financing for innovation-driven enterprises.

To view the full article clickhere

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.