Tax Laws Altered?

Section 64 (1)

“…the tax authority shall have the power to investigate or cause an investigation to be conducted to ascertain any violation of any tax law, whether or not such violation has been reported to the relevant tax authority.” – Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, 2025 (Passed by House of Representatives)

“…the tax authority shall have the power to investigate or cause an investigation to be conducted to ascertain any violation of any tax law, whether or not such violation has been reported to the relevant tax authority and shall also have the power to arrest any person suspected of committing such violations through relevant law enforcement agency.” – Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025 (Official Gazette)

The tax reform laws, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, yesterday faced a major pushback after a member of the House of Representatives alleged discrepancies between the versions passed by the House and the copies gazetted.

The four Acts that jointly make up the Nigeria’s tax reform framework are the National Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act and the Nigeria Tax Act.

They were passed by both chambers of the National Assembly in March, with Votes and Proceedings produced in May; while President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assented to them in June. The laws were gazetted on June 26, according to soft copies of the official gazette sighted by Daily Trust.

During the House of Representatives’ plenary yesterday, Abdussamad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto) raised a matter of privilege, alleging discrepancies between the tax laws passed by the National Assembly and the versions gazetted and made available to the public.

Rising under Order Six, Rule Two of the House Rules, Dasuki said his legislative privilege had been breached, insisting that the content of the gazetted tax laws did not reflect what members debated, voted on and passed.

He said after spending the past three days to carefully review the gazetted copies alongside the Votes and Proceedings of the House as well as the harmonised version adopted by both chambers, he observed discrepancies.

“I was here, I gave my vote and it was counted, and I am seeing something completely different,” the lawmaker said.

He added that he obtained copies of the gazetted laws from the Ministry of Information and found them inconsistent with what was approved by both chambers.

He stressed that the issue was not about moving a motion, but about drawing the attention of the House to what he described as “a serious breach” of legislative process and the Constitution.

He urged the speaker to ensure that all relevant documents, including the harmonised versions, the Votes and Proceedings of both chambers and the gazetted copies currently in circulation, are brought before the Committee of the Whole for scrutiny by all members.

Dasuki warned that allowing laws different from those duly passed by the National Assembly to be presented to Nigerians would undermine the integrity of the legislature and violate constitutional provisions.

“Mister Speaker, this is a breach of the Constitution. This is a breach of our laws, and it should not be taken lightly by this honourable House,” he said.

Responding, Speaker Abbas Tajudeen said he had taken note of the point of privilege raised by Dasuki and assured that action would be taken on the matter.

Gazetted laws vs what House passed

Documents, including soft copies of the gazetted laws and the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives dated May 28, 2025, reviewed by Daily Trust, show several areas where the gazetted versions of the tax reform laws differ from what was passed by the House. Of particular concern are changes in the Nigeria Tax Administration Act that directly affects taxpayers, alongside broader issues of oversight and institutional control.

Several discrepancies in the gazetted Nigeria Tax Administration Act alter taxpayers’ obligations, exposure and rights compared to the version passed by the House. Under Section 3(1)(b), the House-passed bill listed five categories of federal taxes under administration, including taxation of petroleum income and Value Added Tax (VAT). Both items were removed from the gazetted Act, raising questions about the scope of federal tax administration.

Section 29 introduces far-reaching changes to reporting obligations. While the House version provided for annual returns, with reporting thresholds of monthly cumulative N50 million for individuals and N250 million for companies, the gazetted Act replaces this with quarterly returns and significantly lowers the thresholds to monthly cumulative N25 million and N100 million respectively.

The nature of information to be supplied was also narrowed from names, customer locations and transaction details of new and existing customers to names and addresses only. In addition, provisions in Sections 29(3) and (4) that empowered tax authorities to demand information by notice were removed entirely.

Currency computation rules were also altered. Section 39(3) of the House-passed version allowed returns relating to petroleum operations to be computed in the currency of transaction, while the gazetted Act mandates that such tax computations be made in US dollars.

A new provision, Section 41(8), introduced into the gazetted Act now requires a taxpayer dissatisfied with the decision of the Tax Appeal Tribunal, and seeking to appeal to the High Court, to deposit 20 per cent of the disputed amount as security before the appeal can be heard. Section 41(9), which was also introduced in the gazetted version, further formalises the appeal chain, spelling out a progression from the Tax Appeal Tribunal to the High Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

Enforcement powers were also expanded. Section 60(1) of the gazetted Act adds the phrase “without an order of the High Court”, allowing tax authorities to appoint agents without court approval. Critics say this amounts to a major empowerment of the tax authority by granting it direct administrative garnishee powers, removing judicial oversight and bypassing court orders.

Section 61 distinguishes between the powers of the Nigeria Revenue Service and other tax authorities, permitting the Service to sell movable assets without a High Court order.

Section 64(1) goes further by introducing arrest powers, authorising tax authorities to arrest suspected offenders through relevant law enforcement agencies. The version passed by the House only empowered the tax authority to investigate or cause an investigation to be conducted to ascertain any violation of tax laws, whether or not such violation had been reported.

In the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, further discrepancies were identified in provisions governing accountability and legislative oversight. Section 25 of the House-passed version requires the Service to submit quarterly and annual reports to the National Assembly on its activities, performance and financial statements. These reporting obligations were omitted from the gazetted Act, which retains only basic audit provisions.

Similarly, Section 26 of the version passed by the House expressly empowers the National Assembly to summon the Executive Chairman or board members to account for administrative, governance and financial matters. This oversight power does not appear in the gazetted law.

Section 30 in the Votes and Proceedings also assigns broader accountability duties to the Executive Chairman, including the submission of strategic plans, budgets and routine reports to the minister and the National Assembly, as well as mandatory responses to ministerial recommendations. These provisions were removed in the final Act.

Differences were also recorded in the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act. Section 9 of the House-passed version states that any officer exercising the board’s powers must be specifically authorised by the board. The gazetted Act uses broader language, referring to “any officer specifically in that behalf”, without clearly stating who grants the authorisation.

Funding provisions were amended as well. While Section 14 of the House version lists four sources of funding, the gazetted Act introduces an additional source, allowing “additional contributions from members” to fund board activities.

Further omissions affect statutory funding guarantees. The House version provides that both the Tax Appeal Tribunal and the Office of the Tax Ombudsman shall be funded from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as appropriated by the National Assembly. In both cases, the gazetted Act removes reference to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, stating only that funding shall be through appropriation by the National Assembly.

These discrepancies have heightened concerns within the National Assembly and among stakeholders over taxpayer exposure, due process, legislative oversight and the overall integrity of the tax reform framework.

N/Assembly, FIRS deny wrongdoing

Meanwhile, the National Assembly has denied any wrongdoing following allegations of discrepancies between the gazetted copies of the tax Acts and the versions passed by the legislature.

When contacted, the Office of the Clerk to the National Assembly said its records showed that what was transmitted from the Clerk’s office was exactly what was approved by both chambers.

Deputy Director, Information and Special Adviser on Media to the Clerk of the National Assembly, Shehu Umar Tama, said there was no evidence of any variation originating from the legislature.

“From the available records we have here, there is no document that is different from what was passed by the National Assembly. If there is any difference, it happened outside the National Assembly, not here.

“From our records, what was transmitted is the same as what was passed. We are, however, still checking our records,” Tama stated.

Each of the gazetted Acts carries a certification signed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, Esq., dated June 11, 2025, stating that he certified that each bill has been “carefully compared by me with the decision reached by the National Assembly and found by me to be a true and correct decision of the Houses”.

Also reacting to the development, the Special Adviser to the FIRS Chairman on Media, Dare Adekanbi, stated that the service does not have any role in lawmaking.

“The lawmaker should raise the issue of discrepancies at the appropriate quarters. We don’t make laws. Also, we only implement laws that are made and given to us regarding our operations as an agency working for the entire Federation,” he added.

Efforts to obtain reactions from the Chairman of the House Committee on Finance, James Faleke; his Senate counterpart, Senator Sani Musa; and the Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters (Senate), Senator Basheer Lado, were unsuccessful.

While Senator Lado said he should be given time, calls and messages sent to Faleke and Musa had not been returned as of the time of filing this report.

Discrepancies will erode confidence in govt reforms – Economist

An economist, Dr Muhammad Sagagi, warned that the alleged discrepancies strike at the heart of constitutional governance and undermine public trust.

“This is not just about economics; it goes to the core of constitutional governance. It is about credibility and trust,” Sagagi said.

According to him, once a law loses credibility or becomes contested, public confidence in government reforms is eroded. “Once there are questions around a law, it becomes difficult for people to trust the government or accept that it is a genuine reform,” he said, noting that Nigeria’s fiscal system already provides room for credible and effective tax reforms.

“Many Nigerians, despite initial resistance, would understand why reforms are introduced. But to take a route that introduces discrepancies between what was passed by the House and what appears in the gazetted Act is a joke taken too far,” he said.

Sagagi advised that the House of Representatives should first investigate the allegations before the planned implementation of the Acts on January 1, 2026.

“I think the committee of the whole House should investigate and ascertain the veracity of these allegations. If there is even an iota of truth, they should recommend the suspension of the implementation of the laws in January until the issues are resolved,” he said.

He argued that “a law that is delayed but trusted is better than a law that is fast-tracked but contested”, noting that broader acceptance would yield better outcomes.

Sagagi added that credibility was central to revenue generation. “Your credibility is as good as the revenue you collect. In fact, it is more important to have something credible and lawful than to boast about how much revenue you generate,” he said.

Opposition wants tax reforms implementation suspended

The National Opposition Movement (NOM) yesterday called on the federal government to suspend the planned implementation of the new tax reforms, warning that Nigeria is “at the threshold of multidimensional failure”.

The movement, championed by opposition figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Senate President David Mark and Peter Obi, among others, said Nigerians were already grappling with severe economic hardship and that the new tax regime would worsen their plight.

Addressing a world press conference at the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, the group’s spokesman, Chille Igbawua, said the opposition rejected the proposed tax changes because “the timing is cruel and the logic is irrational”.

Igbawua, flanked by Salihu Lukman, Aisha Yesufu, Solomon Dalung and Kenneth Okonkwo, said recent economic policies had pushed households and small businesses to the brink.

“Fuel subsidy removal, naira collapse, food inflation and rising electricity tariffs have already pushed households and small businesses to the edge,” he said. “Introducing an aggressive tax regime at this point confirms the widely held belief of a government dangerously out of touch with reality.”

The group accused the Tinubu administration of concentrating excessive powers in revenue authorities in a country with weak institutional safeguards.

“When citizens fear the taxman more than they trust the government, something is fundamentally wrong.” Igbawua said.

NOM declared solidarity with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC), describing organised labour as central to the struggle for dignity and economic justice.

“The situation in Nigeria today is terrible. Many Nigerians can barely afford food, transport, electricity bills, rent or security,” the group said.

It described the proposed tax regime as “the most punitive and exploitative” in Nigeria’s history, arguing that even colonial authorities did not impose comparable burdens on the poor.

“At a time like this, the Tinubu administration is preparing to roll out a tax regime that ordinary Nigerians do not have the fiscal space to absorb,” it said.

The opposition accused the government of prioritising elite interests over those of ordinary citizens, describing the tax plan as “thoughtless” and driven by “oligarchic interests”.

“What President Tinubu is rolling out in January is not tax reform; it is an assault on the livelihood of ordinary Nigerians,” the group said.

It warned that small and medium-sized enterprises would face additional pressure without corresponding government support.

“This government keeps asking Nigerians to give more, while those in public office take more,” it said, vowing to resist policies that deepen poverty.

They questioned the rationale behind a reported memorandum of understanding between the Federal Inland Revenue Service and a French agency, calling for its contents to be made public in the interest of national security and transparency.

The movement demanded the immediate suspension of the tax reforms’ take-off date and called for broad national consultations involving labour unions, civil society groups, small businesses, professionals and state governments.

“This tax plan must not proceed in its current form,” NOM said. “You cannot tax hunger, you cannot tax poverty, and you cannot tax people into prosperity.”

Tinubu must take action – Former House spokesman

In an open letter to President Tinubu, the spokesman of the 7th House of Representatives,  Zakari Mohammed, said if substantiated, the allegations disclose multiple, continuing and grave constitutional breaches, including but not limited to the following:

1. A violation of Section 4 of the Constitution, which vests legislative powers exclusively in the National Assembly and forbids any other authority from exercising or usurping that power.
2. A breach of Section 58 of the Constitution, which confines the President’s role to assent or withholding of assent, and does not authorise post-passage alteration, insertion, or doctoring of legislative texts.
3. A collapse of the doctrine of separation of powers, by subjecting legislative authority to executive manipulation.
4. A breach of the constitutional oath of office, which mandates fidelity to, and defence of, the Constitution.
5. A potential falsification of public legislative records, rendering the affected laws constitutionally defective and legally vulnerable.

The gazetting and attempted enforcement of a law that does not faithfully reflect the resolutions of the National Assembly is not a procedural lapse; it is a constitutional trespass capable of attracting investigation, individual responsibility, institutional liability, and punitive sanctions under Nigerian law. Where such infractions are tolerated, the supremacy of the Constitution is reduced to rhetoric.

Beyond domestic implications, Mr. President, the international consequences of this conduct are profound. International development partners, multilateral institutions, treaty bodies, and foreign investors assess countries not merely by policy ambition, but by institutional credibility, legislative certainty, and respect for the rule of law. A situation in which laws — especially tax laws — can be altered after parliamentary passage and gazetted in compromised form signals institutional unreliability and regulatory risk.

If allowed to slide, this episode will erode confidence in Nigeria’s law-making process, weaken investor trust in statutory guarantees, and reinforce perceptions of executive arbitrariness. No serious economy attracts sustainable investment where the authenticity of its laws is in doubt.

Tax legislation, by its compulsory nature, demands the strictest adherence to constitutional procedure. Citizens and investors alike cannot be compelled to comply with fiscal obligations arising from laws whose legitimacy, origin, and content are contested. Any such imposition is constitutionally unsafe, economically damaging, and legally challengeable.

Accordingly, and in order to avert a deepening constitutional and institutional crisis, the following steps are imperative:

1. Immediate suspension of the implementation and enforcement of the newly gazetted tax laws.
2. Public release of the exact harmonised versions of the bills as duly passed by both chambers of the National Assembly.
3. An independent and transparent investigation to determine how, when, and by whose authority the discrepancies arose.
4. Identification and punishment of all officials or agencies involved in any unlawful alteration, certification, or gazetting of legislative texts.
5. Withdrawal and nullification of the compromised gazetted instruments where breaches are confirmed, followed by a fresh legislative process conducted strictly in accordance with constitutional requirements.

(Daily trust)