The Presidency, yesterday, distanced itself from alleged alterations of the tax law approved by both chambers of the National Assembly.
Responding to inquiries from reporters, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Idris Mohammed, rejected allegations of executive involvement in the tax law procedure, stating that any differences noted were a matter for the National Assembly.
Mr. Abdulsammad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto) claimed last week that the official version of the tax laws differs from what was discussed and approved by lawmakers, leading the House of Representatives to form a seven-member committee to look into the issue and provide a report.
Under pressure and public anger, the House of Representatives will convene today to discuss the matter.
The Senate will convene to discuss constitutional amendments, among other matters.
In reply to assertions from lawmakers that the tax laws signed by President Bola Tinubu differed from what the National Assembly approved, Idris stated that the issue was clearly within the legislature’s jurisdiction.
“To be honest with you, I have not seen the two versions. What I know is that the executive presented a document, it was processed by the National Assembly, passed, returned, and signed. If the National Assembly has identified discrepancies and has set up a committee, we should allow that process to run,” he said.
The minister emphasized that as far as the Federal Government is concerned, “there is only one version of the tax document,” adding that any further clarification will come after the lawmakers conclude their review.
In a similar vein, Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, urged the National Assembly to look into the purported inconsistencies in the officially published versions of the laws.
Oyedele discussed on Channels Television’s program as demands escalate for the halt of implementing the tax laws by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Peter Obi of the Labour Party, and numerous civil society organizations.
In response, Oyedele rejected the media reports as inaccurate, emphasizing that allegations of inconsistencies could not be confirmed without obtaining the officially certified versions of the legislation enacted by legislators.
“Before you can say there is a difference between what was gazetted and what was passed, we don’t even have what was passed. The official harmonized bills certified by the clerk, which the National Assembly sent to the President, we don’t have a copy to compare. Only the lawmakers can say authoritatively what they sent.”
Oyedele also spoke on a controversial provision in Section 41(8), which reportedly required a 20 percent deposit, saying he reached out to the relevant House committee for clarification.
“I know that particular provision is not in the final gazette, but it was in the draft gazette,” he said, adding that some documents circulating publicly were prepared before the committee had concluded its work.
“What is out there in the media did not come from the committee set up by the House of Representatives. I think we should allow them to do the investigation,” Oyedele said.
Tinubu recently signed four major tax reform bills into law, describing them as the most significant overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system in decades. The laws—the Nigeria Tax Act, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, and Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act—are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
The Reps committee alleged that critical provisions of several 2025 tax laws were altered after passage by the National Assembly, which has triggered serious constitutional and institutional concerns, setting the stage for what is expected to be a tense and far-reaching plenary session today.
Based on the Committee’s findings, it is claimed that substantial clauses were inserted, removed, or changed outside the constitutionally acknowledged law-making procedure after being approved by both houses of the National Assembly.
If supported by the House, the development could make sections of the impacted laws legally invalid and subject the federal government to considerable litigation risks.
Lawmakers are anticipated to examine the report’s finding that new coercive and financial authorities, such as arrest powers, garnishee proceedings without court approval, security deposits, mandatory U.S. dollar calculations, and limitations on appeal rights, were included in the final gazetted acts without legislative consent.
The Committee likewise discovered that the oversight and accountability measures sanctioned by parliament were eliminated in the final versions currently implemented.
The panel cautioned that these changes should not be viewed merely as clerical or editorial adjustments, underscoring that Sections 4 and 58 of the 1999 Constitution confer sole law-making authority to the National Assembly.
“What the National Assembly did not pass cannot become law,” the Committee stated, describing any post-passage alteration as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and legally void to the extent of the changes.
Sources within the House indicate that today’s session will challenge lawmakers’ commitment to uphold legislative authority, as representatives consider suggestions for an immediate legislative assessment of the modified provisions, potential correction or re-passage of impacted laws, and the calling of officials supposedly associated with the enrollment and certification procedures under Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
The report highlighted inconsistencies in the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, the Nigeria Revenue Service Act, and the Joint Revenue Board Act, noting variations between the Votes and Proceedings of 28 May 2025, clerk-certified “as-passed” legislation, and the officially published Acts. A forensic comparison conducted section by section, supported by legal opinions and certified documents, provided the foundation for the Committee’s conclusions.
Aside from the legal ramifications, legislators are anticipated to discuss the wider impacts on governance, investor trust, and financial stability. The committee warned that permitting the supposed changes to remain will compromise parliamentary integrity, diminish oversight, and establish a perilous institutional precedent that could threaten democratic governance.
As the report is already being shared with members, anticipation is considerable. Numerous lawmakers view the issue as a pivotal moment for the 10th House, one that will decide if the legislature can successfully exercise its constitutional powers against perceived executive or bureaucratic overreach.
With the House in session, attention will focus on the chamber to determine if it will promptly accept the report, ensure accountability, and rebuild trust in Nigeria’s legislative process, or if it will permit one of the most significant claims of post-passage legislative changes in recent history to disappear without firm action.
Alleged alterations
- Substantive provisions were inserted, deleted, or modified after passage by both chambers.
- Several oversight, accountability, and reporting mechanisms approved by Parliament were removed in the final acts.
- New coercive and fiscal powers (e.g., arrest powers, garnishment without court order, compulsory USD computation, and appeal security deposits) appeared without legislative approval, and that
- These changes, which can not be classified as clerical or editorial corrections, are deplorable.
Constitutional Implications
If the above is true, then there are constitutional consequences; that
- Sections 4 and 58 of the 1999 Constitution vest law-making power exclusively in the National Assembly.
- The executive or any person purporting to act on behalf of the executive has no constitutional authority to alter a bill after passage.
- Any post-passage alteration is ultra vires, unconstitutional, and void to the extent of the alteration.
- Affected provisions are vulnerable to judicial invalidation, creating legal and fiscal uncertainty.
