Nigeria's Ebola Patient Did Not Visit DR Congo, Deepening Mystery Over Infection Source

The Ebola patient identified in Nigeria did not travel to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Switzerland has said, as health officials across Africa race to determine how the country's first Ebola patient in more than a decade became infected. With the outbreak now reaching a fourth African country, fears of further spread are growing.

The Swiss foreign ministry said on Friday that the patient in Nigeria is the Ugandan-born wife of a Swiss diplomat based in Abuja and had not travelled to DR Congo, where the outbreak was first detected in mid-May before spreading to Uganda, Kenya and now Nigeria. The woman was believed to have contracted Ebola while travelling with her husband in Uganda, the ministry added.

The new information contradicts accounts from Uganda, which previously said the woman had travelled to eastern DR Congo. It will raise concerns about the ability of authorities to contain the outbreak, already described as the most geographically widespread in history.

The Ugandan government reported Ebola cases in May and June before the World Health Organization declared it Ebola-free in August. A Ugandan government spokesperson said on Thursday that Uganda had no Ebola cases and that, if it did, it would make that information public.

The WHO said investigations were continuing to establish the likely source of infection for the patient in Nigeria. For now, it cannot be said with certainty where she picked up the virus.

The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating whether the patient may have come into contact with an Ebola patient in Kenya, as both travelled through Uganda's Entebbe airport on 3 October, said Dr Wessam Mankoula, the organisation's head of emergency preparedness and response.

Catherine Smallwood, a WHO Ebola incident manager in DR Congo, told a UN briefing in Geneva by video link on Friday that WHO staff in DR Congo had no information showing the patient in Nigeria had travelled to the country.

Smallwood said a link to the case in Kenya was possible, but officials would need to compare the timing with when the Nigeria patient's symptoms began to tell whether the infection more likely happened at the Ugandan airport or elsewhere.

Marion Koopmans, a Dutch virologist and member of the WHO's Ebola emergency committee, cast doubt on the theory. She said random presence at the same location, a large airport, is not a supported epidemiological link by any current standard, and called it very speculative without evidence of sharing space in a way that could explain transmission.

Nigeria's health minister, Muhammad Ali Pate, said the country's case remains contained and contact-tracing is continuing. He said they are trying to contain it so it does not reach communities, and are working hard to ensure that does not happen.

Melaku Yirga, vice-president for Africa at Prosper Global (formerly Mercy Corps), said the confirmation of Ebola in Kenya and Nigeria reinforces the need for countries to work closely together to prevent further transmission. What matters most now, he said, is speed, sharing information across borders without delay, and ensuring frontline health workers and local organisations have the resources to respond quickly.

Ebola is a highly contagious and often fatal viral disease affecting humans and other primates. It spreads through body fluids or contaminated materials and causes organ damage, blood vessel impairment and sometimes severe internal and external bleeding.

The current outbreak is caused by the rare Bundibugyo virus, which has no approved treatment or vaccine. First announced on 15 May, it has infected more than 9,500 people and killed nearly half of them.

It is the largest and deadliest outbreak in DR Congo's history and second only globally to the 2014-16 west Africa outbreak, which infected more than 28,600 people and killed more than 11,000. The next prevention steps now depend on confirming how the Nigeria patient was infected.