The Presidency has rejected allegations that it secretly altered provisions of Nigeria’s new tax reform laws, insisting that no changes were made outside the proper legal and legislative process. The denial comes as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate Peter Obi, opposition parties and several civil society groups demand a halt to implementation and a thorough investigation.
President Bola Tinubu signed four tax reform bills into law, which together form what the government calls the most far reaching overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system in decades. The new framework, anchored on the Nigeria Revenue Service, includes the Nigeria Tax Act, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Act and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Act.
According to the Federal Government, the reforms aim to simplify compliance, broaden the tax base, remove overlapping taxes and modernise revenue collection at all levels of government. The laws are scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2026 after a transition period.
Controversy erupted after a member of the House of Representatives, Abdussamad Dasuki, alleged that there were discrepancies between the versions of the tax bills passed by the National Assembly and the gazetted Acts released to the public. He claimed that some oversight and accountability provisions approved by lawmakers were removed, while new coercive powers such as arrest authority, garnishee orders without court approval and compulsory dollar based computations were inserted.
Dasuki warned that if confirmed, the alleged alterations could leave the laws open to legal challenge because they would not reflect what parliament actually debated and passed. The House has since set up an ad hoc committee led by Finance Committee chairman James Faleke to examine all documents, including harmonised texts and records of proceedings.
Presidential media aide Temitope Ajayi dismissed the allegations as unproven and described the criticism as opposition noise aimed at creating controversy around government policy. He said no constituted authority had established any evidence of tampering and insisted that the implementation committee, which has worked for six months, would not be distracted.
Ajayi stressed that the laws were enacted through due process and would be fully enforced from January 1, 2026, with some provisions already being implemented. Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga also ruled out any suspension, saying it was better to wait for the outcome of the House investigation rather than bow to opposition demands.
Atiku Abubakar has called for implementation to be suspended until a detailed probe is completed into the alleged post passage changes. Speaking through his media aide Paul Ibe, he described the situation as dangerous, criminal and a sign of state capture, warning that falsifying laws undermines the integrity of the entire legislative process.
Peter Obi described the controversy as a shift from bad governance to outright abuse of the law, saying it strikes at the heart of constitutional order. He condemned reported new provisions such as mandatory 20 per cent deposits before tax appeals can be heard, asset sales without judicial oversight and arrest powers for tax authorities, insisting that Nigerians must be told exactly what was passed, signed and recorded.
The African Democratic Congress labelled the tax laws draconian and demanded their immediate suspension to allow parliament to determine the extent of any forgery and correct it. The party warned that altering a law after passage suggests an attempt to concentrate excessive power in the presidency and called for a public inquiry to identify and punish those responsible.
The Take It Back Movement said it had begun mobilising Nigerians against the reforms, describing them as anti people and illegitimate. Its national coordinator, Juwon Sanyaolu, argued that the tax package targets employers, entrepreneurs, young people, content creators and other informal workers while government fails to provide basic services, adding that citizens cannot be asked to bear heavier tax burdens in an atmosphere of secrecy and distrust.