Connect with us

News

Alteration row: Tinubu insists on Jan 1 for new tax regime

Published

on

President Bola Tinubu has insisted that the new tax laws will take effect on January 1, 2026, as planned. This was disclosed in a statement that he personally signed on Tuesday and issued by the State House.

This came as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party slammed the President, describing the move as hasty and insensitive amid ongoing controversies surrounding the alleged alterations to the legislation.

The PUNCH reports that Tinubu, on June 26, 2025, signed the four Tax Reform Bills into law. These laws include the Nigeria Tax Act, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, the Nigeria Revenue Service Act, and the Joint Revenue Board Act.

The Acts comprehensively overhaul the Nigerian tax landscape to drive economic growth, increase revenue generation, improve the business environment, and enhance effective tax administration across the different levels of government. While some of the laws have gone into effect, others are set to go into effect on January 1.

Tinubu said, “The new tax laws, including those that took effect on June 26, 2025, and the remaining Acts scheduled to commence on January 1, 2026, will continue as planned. These reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a fair, competitive, and robust fiscal foundation for our country.

“The tax laws are not designed to raise taxes, but rather to support a structural reset, drive harmonisation, and protect dignity while strengthening the social contract. I urge all stakeholders to support the implementation phase, which is now firmly in the delivery stage.

“Our administration is aware of the public discourse surrounding alleged changes to some provisions of the recently enacted tax laws. No substantial issue has been established that warrants a disruption of the reform process. Absolute trust is built over time through making the right decisions, not through premature, reactive measures.”

The President went on to emphasise his administration’s unwavering commitment to due process and the integrity of enacted laws.

“The Presidency pledges to work with the National Assembly to ensure the swift resolution of any issue identified. I assure all Nigerians that the Federal Government will continue to act in the overriding public interest to ensure a tax system that supports prosperity and shared responsibility,” he asserted.

The PUNCH reported that in recent weeks, there had been allegations of alteration to the gazetted tax reforms. A member of the House of Representatives from Sokoto State, Abdulsamad Dasuki, alleged that the versions of the tax laws gazetted and made public contained provisions never debated or approved by lawmakers. This had sparked calls for the suspension of the implementation of the laws.

Atiku, PDP slam Tinubu

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party have knocked President Tinubu over his decision to proceed with the enforcement of the amended tax laws from January 1, describing the move as hasty and insensitive amid ongoing controversies surrounding alleged alterations to the legislation.

Atiku, in an exclusive interview with The PUNCH through his media adviser, Paul Ibe, described Tinubu’s insistence on proceeding with the plan despite the alleged alterations as irresponsible.

Similarly, the Tanimu Turaki–led PDP, in a statement issued on Tuesday by its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said the President’s stance demonstrated that he prioritised revenue generation over the welfare of Nigerians.

The President’s stance comes barely four days after the National Assembly directed the re-gazetting of the four tax reform laws following allegations that provisions in the published Official Gazette differ from what lawmakers actually passed.

Atiku said it would be irresponsible for President Tinubu to go ahead with the plan in spite of the public outcry over the alleged alterations.

See also  16 escape death in Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway crash

He stated, “How do we know that nothing substantial was altered? Was there an investigation by the Federal Government or the Presidency? We are only aware that there was an ad hoc committee that had not completed its work. So why would the President go ahead? The President should remember that his mandate is derived from Nigerians. Nigerians have spoken, and they have spoken clearly about how they feel concerning these tax laws.

“As you know, tax laws have a huge impact on people’s lives, and it is only proper that all the processes that have been initiated are exhausted to be sure that this law was duly passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President without discrepancies. Otherwise, it amounts to forgery. And that, by the way, is the character of this administration. It appears that forgery has become a state policy, to the extent that even a tax law— a so-called reform meant to improve tax administration in Nigeria—already has serious issues even before implementation.

“Sadly, it appears that the Senate President and the President are working in concert to ensure that Nigerians do not even have the benefit of this particular document. What was signed and gazetted? There are supposed to be three copies: one with the Presidency, one with the Supreme Court, and one with the National Assembly. Why is it difficult to produce any of these documents so that Nigerians can independently determine what happened and whether the allegations are true? It is not the responsibility of the Presidency to dismiss these concerns. Doing so represents the height of irresponsibility, to say the least.

“If the President goes ahead with its implementation, I want to say clearly that this is an act of irresponsibility. It reflects elements of dictatorship and follows the same pattern of state capture. I do not know what this administration is trying to achieve, but I do not think it is the right thing to do. He must understand that there are consequences for actions and inactions.”

On its part, the PDP reiterated that Nigerians are calling for a comprehensive probe into the irregularity, insisting on clarity about who carried out the alleged illegal insertion and the process through which it occurred.

It also decried what he described as the Tinubu administration’s tendency, since assuming office in 2023, to place revenue considerations above the welfare and well-being of Nigerians.

PDP stated, “Rather than address these issues comprehensively, the Presidency has consciously minimised them and instead vehemently insisted that the commencement date must stand, despite the discrepancies. This disposition clearly shows where the priority of the government lies, between Nigerians and money.

“This Tinubu Presidency has always prioritised finance over the welfare and well-being of Nigerians from its inception in 2023, as evidenced by the reckless way it announced and implemented the removal of subsidy, which immediately impacted the economy of the country and caused ordinary Nigerians to suffer irreparable economic damage.

“In this instance, the President should remember that he is an employee of the people and, therefore, should listen to his employers. He should also remember that he won with less than 40 per cent of the votes in the elections that gave him the job, and should therefore recognise that listening to Nigerians must be a primary duty of his administration, rather than serving the narrow interests of people around him.

See also  INEC revised timetable, schedule for 2027 general elections; see full list

“Mr President is reminded that a responsible PDP administration in 2012 listened to the cries of Nigerians and civil society organisations (where he played a prominent role during the protests) against the removal of fuel subsidy, in deference to the voices of Nigerians.”

PDP emphasised that the interests of Nigerians should be the top priority for the President and the Federal Government. It continued, “Consequently, we reiterate our earlier call for the suspension of the commencement date of the Tax Act, pending the conclusion of a thorough investigation. Obedience to laws in a democracy is directly linked to the belief that elected legislators have deliberated upon and approved them.

“A mere suspicion, let alone a confirmed fact, that unapproved sections have been smuggled into a law with the capacity to affect all Nigerians, is sufficient reason to suspend its commencement. The President must act in favour of the people of this country; to do otherwise is a clear confirmation that money, not the people, is the priority.”

The controversy erupted on December 17, 2025, when a House of Representatives member, Abdussamad Dasuki, raised a matter of privilege in the House, alleging that gazetted tax laws available to the public “differed materially” from versions debated, harmonized, and approved by the National Assembly.

Dasuki warned that the alleged alterations posed “serious legal and constitutional risks,” noting they were “not backed by any constitutional framework and could threaten Nigeria’s democratic order.”

Specific concerns included alien provisions such as coercive and fiscal powers, including arrest powers, power to garnish without court order, compulsory USD computation, and appeal security deposits, that allegedly appeared in gazetted copies without legislative approval.

On December 26, the National Assembly leadership jointly directed the Clerk to the National Assembly to re-gazette the Acts and issue Certified True Copies of versions “duly passed by both chambers.”

House spokesman Akin Rotimi described the directive as “an administrative step intended solely to authenticate and accurately reflect the legislative decisions of the National Assembly.”

“This review is strictly confined to institutional processes and procedures. It does not constitute, imply, or concede any defect in the exercise of legislative authority by the House of Representatives or the Senate,” Rotimi stated.

An Ad Hoc Committee chaired by Muktar Betara (APC, Borno) was established to investigate the allegations and reconstruct “the sequence of events” around passage, presidential assent, and gazetting.

Several opposition figures and bodies have called for the suspension of the January 1 implementation pending the resolution of the controversy.

Atiku had described any alteration as “an act of treason against the Nigerian people,” while former Senate Leader Ali Ndume urged President Tinubu on December 25 to suspend implementation “amid claims and counterclaims.”

The Nigeria Labour Congress, Nigerian Bar Association, and 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi have all demanded a halt to the commencement date until the matter is resolved.

Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee Chairman Taiwo Oyedele had briefed the President in Lagos, assuring him that implementation would proceed as planned.

“The plan to commence the new law, the two remaining new laws on the first of January 2026, will go ahead as planned, on schedule, because these reforms are designed to provide relief to the Nigerian people,” Oyedele told journalists on Friday.

He emphasised that “the bottom 98 per cent of workers will see either no pay tax or lower taxes to be paid. Small businesses, 97 per cent of them, will be exempted from corporate income tax, VAT, withholding tax, and large businesses will see a drop in the taxes that they paid.”

See also  Tinubu Redeploys Fani-Kayode To South Africa, Enang To Germany

NBA, ACF react

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe (SAN), and the Arewa Consultative Forum also raised concerns over Tinubu’s insistence on implementing the new tax laws from January 1, 2026, citing unresolved controversies surrounding the authenticity of the legislation.

Reacting, Osigwe said there were critical distinctions that must be made regarding the implementation of the tax laws. According to him, if the President’s decision is to implement “the authentic law as passed by the National Assembly, which has no controversy of having been doctored or tampered with,” then the President would be right.

He explained that the NBA’s call was not for the suspension of the tax laws in general, but specifically for any version alleged to have been altered after passage by the National Assembly. “It is a suspension of the tax law that is alleged to be tainted with additions, modifications, and deletions of some provisions, which in our opinion would be a subversion of the will of the people as expressed by the legislature,” he said.

Osigwe added that if the President intended to implement the actual tax laws passed by the National Assembly, which its leadership had directed the Clerk to certify in line with the provisions of the Tax Authentication Act, then the basis for the NBA’s call for suspension would no longer exist. “If that is the law to be implemented effective January 1st, then we would not ask that the implementation be suspended,” he said.

However, he warned that implementing a version different from what was passed by the National Assembly would justify calls for suspension. “So it depends on what version of the law is being sought to be implemented,” Osigwe stated.

Similarly, the ACF faulted the January 2026 implementation timeline. Speaking in Kaduna on Tuesday, the ACF National Publicity Secretary, Prof Tukur Muhammad-Baba, described the President’s stance as unfortunate, noting that the controversies surrounding the Tax Reform Bills had yet to be resolved.

“The development is unfortunate, as the President ought to respond to the various controversies that the Tax Reform Bills have thrown up. The complaints being raised are critical and legitimate,” Muhammad-Baba said.

He noted that Nigerians were particularly worried about discrepancies between what the National Assembly passed and the version of the laws that was eventually gazetted. “What the citizens want to know is exactly what the National Assembly passed and why there is a difference with the gazetted version. It is a fundamental credibility and integrity issue that must be addressed and resolved,” he added.

Muhammad-Baba said there were indications that the National Assembly had begun looking into the matter and stressed that due process should be allowed to run its course. “The process must be allowed to go through in the interest of the nation as a whole, as it affects all citizens who are critical stakeholders in the Nigerian project,” he said.

He further disclosed that the ACF leadership was reviewing the situation and would announce its official position in the coming days. Recalling earlier debates on the tax laws, he said the ACF had made critical recommendations that were incorporated into the versions passed by the National Assembly.

“It is disappointing to see those efforts being wasted, as it now appears. This is not the way to run a democracy,” he concluded.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  Attack scare: Police deploy officers to top Lagos schools

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  Dangote faces price war as NNPC backs fuel imports

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  US lawmaker bill seeks mandatory Sharia rejection by immigrants

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  Atiku Abubakar's bloc shops for VP, eyes Obi, Amaechi

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  Dangote faces price war as NNPC backs fuel imports

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  US Congressman; Riley Moore meets Ribadu, others, says religious violence must stop

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending