Altered Tax Act: A Constitutional crisis for Tinubu
In recent times, we have accused our elected leaders of corruption, abuse of office, impunity, and similar misconduct. But never in our short history did we imagine accusing the Presidency of forging the very law it originated.
Recently, Hon. Abdussamad Dasuki raised concerns about unusual alterations to the bill approved by the National Assembly. Several other members of the House of Representatives have since supported his claims. A legislative inquiry is set to begin. If the allegations are proven, they may amount to legislative fraud and criminal liability. This could force resignations across the executive arm, including ministers, advisers, and potentially the President.
Let’s recall the scenario. It was President Tinubu’s Presidency that transmitted the Nigeria Tax Bill to the National Assembly in October 2024 for consideration. The Bill covered the Tax Administration Act and proposed new statutes, the Revenue Service Act and the Joint Revenue Board Act. Given the APC’s super-dominance in both chambers, the Bill eventually passed.
Despite its dominance in the legislature, the Presidency allegedly chose to alter the laws without National Assembly approval. Returning the bill for reconsideration would have been a procedural rubber-stamping exercise. What, then, was so urgent that it justified altering the Tax Act without due process?
The response of the Chairman of the Presidential Tax Reform, Mr Oyedele, was anything but convincing. He went from saying that comparing the gazetted and harmonised versions is impossible to pleading with legislators to accept a partial implementation.
Oyedele cannot plead ignorance. He ought to know about Section 4(1)–(2), which vests law-making power exclusively in the National Assembly. Similarly, he should be aware that Section 58 sets out the full legislative process. He also knows that there is no constitutional provision that authorises the Executive to alter, insert, delete, or amend a bill after passage. Any such alteration is unconstitutional.
Surprisingly, he is pushing for a partial implementation of the Bill even if it is found to be doctored. His proposal sounded juvenile. Once an act is found to have been altered outside the procedure in section 58, it becomes invalid. An unconstitutional Act is void; the Executive cannot select what should be correct or not. There is a Supreme Court ruling on that.
As implementation time approaches, Nigerians are now forced to scrutinise the gazetted version of the Nigeria Tax Bill, line by line. And from the first 100 Sections we scrutinised, we found 28 alterations. Here are some examples.
Starting with the Nigerian Tax Administration Act. Section 3(1)(b), administration power, had five components of federal taxes: income tax, stamp duty, tax incentives, VAT and taxation of petroleum income. The executive-gazetted version removed the federal administrative power over petroleum income tax and VAT under this subsection. This creates an internal inconsistency because VAT is still listed in 3(1)(a)(v). It may even create constitutional disputes over VAT administration between federal and state authorities. Section 29 changed from annual to quarterly returns for financial institutions, lowered thresholds, and removed notice safeguards. It basically expanded the compliance burden and reduced procedural protection.
Under section 39(3), the Executive altered the transaction currency by mandating the use of US dollars for petroleum operations. The version passed by the National Assembly allowed taxes to be assessed and paid in the transaction currency. This is a fundamental alteration. It is not a clerical improvement. It alters the fiscal impact of the law.
Section 41(8)-(9), where the gazetted version inserted a new precondition of 20 per cent security for High Court appeal, and restructured the appeal pathway for those seeking faster outcomes. The legislators did not approve this.
Section 60(1) inserted an agency appointment without a High Court order. This contradicts the property rights risk under section 44 of the Constitution. Section 61(4)-(5) allowed service for faster sale/enforcement without a High Court order in some instances, which reduces the safeguards of properties. Section 64(1) introduced a significant coercive change by empowering the tax authorities to arrest through law enforcement agencies. Tax authorities cannot be given powers beyond those approved by the National Assembly.
Section 65(4) raises economic burden concerns as the executive introduced compound interest for unpaid tax debts at commencement. Section 79 inserted a structural governance change by moving virtual asset administration from the tax authority to the President-designated agency. These additions are unconstitutional and must be removed.
The Nigeria Revenue Service Act also underwent further amendments by the executives.
In Section 7, the executive made a new addition under the Composition of the Governing Board. It mandated the President to appoint six members, one from each geopolitical zone, subject to qualifications and “diversity” of expertise. Section 17 introduced an alteration to Executive Directors, changing the number from exactly six to “not less than six,” and removing the rotational mandate. This introduction is a policy, not a correction. The National Assembly never approved this governance structure.
Section 25, Accounts and Audit, removed mandatory quarterly and annual reporting to the National Assembly. The removal weakens legislative oversight, contrary to the Constitution’s checks-and-balances framework. Similarly, Section 30 of the gazetted version removes submission of strategic plans, mandatory reports to the National Assembly, Ministerial supervisory powers and reporting on implementation of recommendations. These amendments have weakened the legislature’s oversight powers.
These are just a few of the items that have been picked. But as Hon Fagge mentioned, even if only one section differs from the harmonised version, there is a problem. Needless to say, we found 28 alterations in the first 100 sections.
If changes occurred without the President’s knowledge, responsibility shifts to the Attorney-General, legislative clerks, or gazette officers. But if Tinubu knowingly assented to a doctored text or authorised the alteration, responsibility attaches to him personally. At that point, impeachment is constitutionally open, and the issue ceases to be administrative.
