FG Digs In On Tax Laws

The federal government has insisted on pressing ahead with the planned implementation of the tax laws, dismissing growing calls for its suspension amid allegations of discrepancies between the versions passed by the National Assembly and those later gazetted and released to the public.

The controversy has triggered calls from various quarters for the suspension of the implementation of the tax laws, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.

A member of the House of Representatives, Abdussamad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto), had during plenary on Wednesday alleged discrepancies between the versions of the tax bills passed by the House and the copies subsequently gazetted.

Following the allegation, the House of Representatives set up an ad hoc committee to investigate the matter and submit its report on Thursday, Christmas Day.

Another lawmaker, Mansur Manu Soro (Bauchi), said on Sunday that he was working with like-minded colleagues to raise the issue formally on the floor of the House today.

Soro said his independent review of the Votes and Proceedings of the National Assembly, the harmonised versions of the tax bills as passed and the copies published in the Official Gazette confirmed the existence of what he described as “material discrepancies”.

However, speaking on Channels Television on Monday, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Taiwo Oyedele, warned that delaying the reforms could push up the prices of basic goods and services, including food, healthcare and education, while keeping workers and small businesses overtaxed.

Oyedele said opposition to the reforms did not begin with the recent allegations of alterations, noting that calls for suspension had existed even before the controversy emerged.

He attributed much of the resistance to misinformation, stressing that the decision to suspend or postpone the implementation of the laws rests with the National Assembly.

According to him, delaying the reforms would mean retaining the existing tax regime, which he said places a heavy burden on workers and small businesses.

He said the bottom 98 per cent of workers would remain overtaxed, while small businesses would continue to miss out on exemptions and face multiple taxation.

“I think I should also say that even before the alleged alteration issue came up, there were people calling for suspension and others saying no to the reform for different reasons. The biggest issue we have had to deal with, and are still dealing with, is misinformation.

“Now, when you look at the legal provisions and who has the powers, even if we want to postpone the implementation of the law, that decision rests with the lawmakers. That is far beyond my pay grade, and I believe such a decision will be a function of what the findings from this investigation reveal.

“But just to make this very clear to Nigerians, what some people have done is to recruit unsuspecting Nigerians to fight a reform that is meant to benefit the generality of the people, mainly by creating fear,” he said.

Oyedele also said large firms would continue to contend with nuisance taxes, while minimum tax would still apply to low-income earners and unprofitable businesses if the reforms were delayed.

He added that hidden value-added tax would continue to drive up the cost of basic goods and services such as food, healthcare and education.

“So, what is the cost of delay, what is the cost of not going ahead on January 1, and what is the cost of suspending the reform? It simply means that we continue with the status quo, which is that the bottom 98 per cent of workers remain overtaxed, small businesses continue to miss out on exemptions and continue to pay multiple taxes and a high tax burden, large firms continue to face nuisance taxes, minimum tax continues to apply to low-income earners, small businesses and unprofitable businesses, and hidden VAT continues to push up the cost of basic items such as food, healthcare and education. It also means that the wasteful, distortionary incentives that are distorting the economy will continue,” he said.

On the allegations that some provisions of the tax laws were altered after passage by the National Assembly, Oyedele said that even if such changes were established, the appropriate response would be to identify the affected provisions and treat them as not forming part of the law.

“So, we need to be clear about what we are asking for. That is why I keep saying that even if it is established that there have been substantial alterations to what the National Assembly passed, my view is that those provisions should simply be identified and treated as not being part of the law.

“So, you can then go ahead and implement the law as passed by the National Assembly, while addressing the questions of how those provisions got there and what should be done about them,” he said.

Oyedele further disclosed that the committee had already identified areas within the laws passed by the National Assembly that require amendments, including issues relating to references and definitions.

“Even looking at what was passed by the National Assembly, there are areas where my committee already noted the need to go back, through Mr President, to request amendments. Some of these issues relate to referencing and definitions.

“For example, small business is defined differently in two of the new laws. If you are defining a small business, it should be defined in one consistent way so people are not confused.

“So, these are issues that already require intervention by the lawmakers,” he added.

Wait for feedback from N/Assembly – Information minister

On his part, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, urged Nigerians to wait for feedback from the National Assembly on the alleged discrepancies.

Speaking at an end-of-year press conference in Abuja on Monday, the minister said he was aware that lawmakers had observed some discrepancies and set up a committee to examine them.

“All I know is that the executive presented a document to the National Assembly. It was processed, it was passed and it was returned to the executive,” he said.

He said the federal government was aware of only one version of the tax document.

Idris appealed to Nigerians to “wait for feedback from the National Assembly”, adding that further clarification would be provided if required.

“At this point, we know that a tax document was presented to the National Assembly, they worked on it, they returned it, it was passed and it has been signed into law,” he said.

Efforts by Daily Trust to obtain reactions from the spokesmen of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Senator Yemi Adaramodu and Akin Rotimi respectively, to the assertion by Oyedele that only lawmakers could suspend or postpone the implementation of the tax laws were unsuccessful, as they did not respond to enquiries.

The two spokesmen neither answered several calls to their mobile telephone lines nor replied to text and WhatsApp messages sent to them.

Specific discrepancies as alleged

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 to the Nigeria Tax Administration Act that directly affect taxpayers, alongside broader issues relating to oversight and institutional control.

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

Section 29 also 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 further 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), which 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 the transaction, while the gazetted Act mandates that such computations be made in US dollars.

A new provision, Section 41(8), introduced in 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), also newly introduced, further formalises the appeal chain, spelling out a progression from the Tax Appeal Tribunal to the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Enforcement powers were similarly 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 effectively grants tax authorities direct administrative garnishee powers, removing judicial oversight and bypassing court orders.

Section 61 further distinguishes between the powers of the 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.

By contrast, the version passed by the House only empowered the tax authority to investigate or cause an investigation to be conducted to ascertain violations of tax laws, whether or not such violations had been reported.

In the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, additional 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 House-passed version 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 both 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 such 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.

Collectively, 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.

Discrepancies could expose tax laws to judicial nullification – SAN

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Salman Jawondo, told Daily Trust that unresolved discrepancies could expose the tax laws to litigation with far-reaching consequences, including possible judicial nullification.

According to him, “Any provision not passed by the legislature cannot qualify as law, regardless of whether such insertion occurred before or after presidential assent.

“The legal effect is clear. Any provision that was not passed by the National Assembly cannot qualify as law. Such provisions would be legally infirm, null and void,” he said.

Jawondo added that if it is established that alterations were made after passage, the issue could go beyond constitutional defects.

“If it is established that provisions were inserted after the bills had been passed, that would amount to forgery. That is a criminal act,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that the allegation must first be proven through verification of official records.

“It is yet to be established that those provisions were indeed inserted after passage. But this is not a difficult matter to resolve. Every member of the National Assembly who participated in the process would have copies of the bills as passed,” he said.

According to him, a comparison between the authenticated bills passed by the legislature and the gazetted versions would reveal whether unauthorised changes were made.

“If additional provisions are found in the gazetted Acts which were not part of what the National Assembly passed, then those provisions cannot stand. They are not law,” he said.

On implementation, particularly as the Federal Government insists on enforcement from January, Jawondo warned that actions taken under invalid provisions could later collapse.

“If such contentious provisions are implemented and later declared unlawful, whatever has been done pursuant to those provisions would also collapse,” he said.

He further warned that courts could even go as far as declaring the entire Act null and void if it is found not to reflect the true intention of the National Assembly.

Jawondo noted, however, that courts often apply the “blue pencil rule”, allowing valid portions of a law to stand while striking out defective sections.

“There is what we call the ‘blue pencil rule’ whereby the invalid ones are invalidated while those validly passed and assented to by the President stand as the law,” he explained.

He lauded the House of Representatives for setting up a committee to examine the issue and urged transparency.

“They should compare the bills as passed with what was eventually gazetted. These are documents. There should be no hide-and-seek,” he said.

Jawondo added that if discrepancies are confirmed, there would be no need for a fresh legislative process, noting that the President could simply republish the corrected version.

“All that is required is for the President to amend the gazetted version to reflect exactly what the National Assembly passed and then republish the authentic Acts,” he said.

‘Why National Assembly won’t stop tax laws implementation’

Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abeni Mohammed, told Daily Trust that “it is difficult to ascertain the truth in this alleged alteration of the tax laws”, but added that if the allegation is eventually proven, the National Assembly could intervene formally.

“If the allegation is true, the National Assembly can, by proclamation, ask the President not to implement the tax law until it is ascertained that the gazetted tax law is as passed by the National Assembly,” he said.

However, he expressed doubt that such action would be taken, citing what he described as the “rubber-stamp nature” of the current National Assembly.

Another SAN, Kehinde Eleja, said any claim that the gazetted version of the tax laws differs from what was passed should be addressed through the Clerk of the National Assembly.

“Anyone raising the issue that the gazetted version is not what was passed must take that up with the Clerk of the National Assembly so that the appropriate administrative steps can be taken to correct it,” he said.

According to Eleja, discrepancies between versions do not amount to a breach of the law but should be resolved internally within the legislature.

“The law signed by the President stands. The law that is gazetted represents the law in force. If there is any discrepancy, it is an administrative matter that should be corrected through proper institutional channels,” he said.

A professor of Law, Auwalu Yadudu, had last week warned that implementing the laws amid allegations of illegality could expose the government to litigation and uncertainty.

“Proceeding in the face of these allegations risks dignifying impunity and further subverting legislative autonomy,” Yadudu said.

He warned that the alleged alterations could amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative powers.

In a release titled ‘Discrepancy between Provisions of Bills Passed into Law and Gazetted Copies Amount to Usurpation of Legislative Power of Lawmaking by Executive Fiat’, he said his review of documents outlining differences between Acts passed by lawmakers and the gazetted versions led him to an “inescapable conclusion” that elements within the executive may have unilaterally altered the laws in furtherance of the tax reform agenda.

Yadudu said any such alterations, if confirmed, would undermine constitutional governance.

“For how else can one explain extensive review and alteration of laws that were publicly debated, subjected to public hearings and duly passed, to now insert entirely new provisions or remove those lawfully adopted?” he asked.

He cited examples from the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, including changes affecting provisions on petroleum income tax and VAT, which he said negated legislative consensus and introduced internal inconsistencies.

He also referenced a provision in the gazetted version mandating the use of the US dollar as the sole currency for computing tax obligations, contrary to the law passed by lawmakers, which allows computation in any currency relevant to the transaction.

Yadudu urged both chambers of the National Assembly to conduct an open and thorough investigation to determine who authorised the changes and how they were effected.

Tope Fasua alleges sabotage

The Special Adviser to the President on Economic Affairs, Tope Fasua, on Thursday alleged that some individuals were attempting to undermine the success of the ongoing tax reforms.

He spoke during the inauguration of a Joint Committee of the National Orientation Agency and the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms in Abuja.

Fasua said the committee would work to counter misinformation and disinformation surrounding the reforms, which he said were being spread by alleged saboteurs.

“People are trying to ensure that, maybe, if they can manage to do it, the reforms do not succeed. However, we must quickly say that despite this resistance, this is a pro-poor policy, a policy on recalibrating the revenues of this country that ensures the poorest Nigerians are not touched, except positively,” he said. (Daily trust)