Presidency Denies Altering Tax Laws as Reps Probe Alleged Changes to Tinubu-Signed Bills

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu

Presidency Denies Altering Tax Laws as Reps Probe Alleged Changes to Tinubu-Signed Bills

The Presidency has denied any involvement in the alleged alteration of Nigeria’s new tax laws, insisting that any discrepancies between versions of the legislation are strictly a matter for the National Assembly.

Responding to media inquiries on Tuesday, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Idris Mohammed, dismissed claims of executive interference in the tax law-making process, following accusations by lawmakers that provisions of the bills were altered after passage.

Last week, Abdulsammad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto) alleged that the officially gazetted tax laws differed from what lawmakers debated and approved, prompting the House of Representatives to set up a seven-member investigative committee. Amid growing public concern, the House is expected to deliberate on the matter at plenary today, while the Senate convenes separately to consider constitutional amendments and related issues.

Reacting to claims that the tax laws signed by President Bola Tinubu were inconsistent with those passed by the legislature, Idris said the issue falls squarely within the legislature’s remit.

“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.

READ ALSO:

The minister added that, from the Federal Government’s standpoint, “there is only one version of the tax document,” noting that clarity would emerge after lawmakers conclude their review.

Similarly, Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, urged the National Assembly to thoroughly investigate the alleged inconsistencies. Speaking on Channels Television, Oyedele cautioned against drawing conclusions without access to the official, clerk-certified versions of the bills transmitted to the President.

“Before you can say there is a difference between what was gazetted and what was passed, we don’t even have what was passed. Only the lawmakers can say authoritatively what they sent,” he said.

Oyedele also addressed controversy surrounding Section 41(8), which reportedly introduced a 20 per cent security deposit, clarifying that the provision appeared in a draft but not in the final gazette. He stressed that documents circulating in the media may have predated the conclusion of legislative work.

Meanwhile, pressure has mounted from opposition figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, as well as civil society groups, calling for a suspension of the tax laws’ implementation.

President Tinubu recently signed four major tax reform bills into law—the Nigeria Tax Act, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, and Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act—describing them as the most comprehensive overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system in decades. The laws are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.

However, the Reps committee has alleged that key provisions were inserted, deleted or modified after passage by both chambers, raising serious constitutional and institutional concerns. According to the panel, new coercive and fiscal powers—including arrest powers, garnishee proceedings without court orders, compulsory US dollar computations, and limits on appeal rights—appeared in the final acts without legislative approval, while several oversight and accountability mechanisms approved by parliament were removed.

The committee warned that such changes go beyond clerical corrections, stressing that Sections 4 and 58 of the 1999 Constitution vest exclusive law-making powers in the National Assembly. “What the National Assembly did not pass cannot become law,” the panel said, describing any post-passage alteration as unconstitutional and legally void.

Lawmakers are expected to debate the findings, consider corrective legislation, and possibly summon officials involved in the enrolment and certification process. Beyond legal risks, the report cautioned that unresolved discrepancies could undermine investor confidence, financial stability, and democratic governance.