by Nij Martin
Nigeria is facing what opposition leaders are calling a constitutional crisis and what the Presidency dismisses as “opposition noise.” At the center of the controversy: allegations that the country’s newly enacted tax reform laws were secretly altered after being passed by the National Assembly, with provisions added and removed without legislative approval. As the January 1, 2026 implementation date approaches, the question everyone is asking is simple but explosive: Who changed the laws, and why?
The Allegations: What Changed and When?
The firestorm began during plenary on Wednesday when Representative Abdussamad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto) alleged that the gazetted tax laws differed significantly from what lawmakers debated, voted on, and passed. Dasuki warned that if not addressed, the alleged alterations could render the new tax laws legally vulnerable since they lacked legislative approval.
The claims are specific and serious. According to a document obtained by Sunday PUNCH from a credible National Assembly source, vital provisions concerning oversight and accountability that were initially approved by lawmakers were removed from the final Acts. Even more troubling, new coercive clauses—including arrest powers, garnishee orders without court approval, and compulsory USD computation—which were not part of the versions ratified by parliament, allegedly appeared in the gazetted laws.
The African Democratic Congress conducted what it described as a “forensic review” comparing the original laws and gazetted versions, claiming to have “established beyond doubt that key accountability provisions were deleted, while new clauses were inserted granting coercive powers to the executive in enforcing the tax laws without recourse to the courts.”
One particularly controversial alleged insertion grants the government “the express power to arrest and take over the property of anyone who does not comply with the tax laws”—a power the ADC insists was never contemplated or approved by the legislature.
The Presidency’s Response: “Opposition Noise”
The Presidency has categorically dismissed these allegations. Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, told Sunday PUNCH that no amount of opposition pushback would stop the implementation of the laws in January.
“Opposition elements can say whatever they want, even when it is very obvious to every rational person that all they seek to do every time is to pollute the waters and create a toxic environment around policy issues,” Ajayi said.
He stressed that the implementation committee had been working for the past six months and would not be distracted by attempts to undermine the policy. Ajayi argued that claims of document alteration remained unproven, noting that the actions of an opposition member could not invalidate laws that had been duly passed and signed.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, ruled out any suspension of implementation, stating: “The opposition is talking nonsense; the law has already been passed. The timeline for the implementation is January 1. In fact, the law is already being implemented, and by January 1, it will come fully into effect, so there is no point in demanding the suspension of the implementation.”
What We Know About the Process
President Bola Tinubu signed four tax reform bills into law, marking what the government described as the most significant overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system in decades. The laws include 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 are designed to simplify tax compliance, expand the tax base, eliminate overlapping taxes, and modernize revenue collection across federal, state, and local governments. The laws faced stiff opposition from federal lawmakers from the northern part of the country before their passage, but ultimately went through the National Assembly.
The question is what happened between legislative passage and gazette publication.
The Investigation: House Takes Action
Recognizing the gravity of the allegations, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas announced a seven-man ad hoc committee to investigate the claims and submit a report to the House for further legislative action. The committee is chaired by James Faleke, Chairman of the House Committee on Finance.
The Presidency says it’s willing to wait for this investigation’s outcome. Onanuga stated: “The House of Representatives, where this allegation emanated from, has set up a committee to investigate. We would like to wait for the outcome of the investigation before we make any comment. We don’t want to say anything that will subvert what they are investigating, whether it is true or not. We want to allow the House to do its work.”
This position creates an interesting dynamic—the Presidency simultaneously dismisses the allegations as baseless while saying it will respect the House investigation.
Opposition Heavyweights Weigh In
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar called for immediate suspension of implementation pending investigation. Speaking through his media aide Paul Ibe, Atiku said: “Something is wrong with this country. It is a very serious issue. Something has been appended to the law, and some people have gone ahead to alter it. This is falsification, and it is criminal. The big question is: what else has been doctored? What else has been falsified?”
He added ominously: “This is dangerous, and it affirms the state capture the opposition warned about in our joint statement.”
Peter Obi, the 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party, described the development as “not merely an administrative oversight” but “a serious matter that strikes at the core of constitutional governance and reveals the extent of our institutional decay.”
In a statement titled “Migrating from Padded Budgets to Forged Laws,” Obi wrote: “We have transitioned from a Nigeria where budgets are padded to one where laws are forged—changes that impact taxpayers’ rights and, most importantly, access to justice. Even more alarming is the introduction of new enforcement and coercive powers that the House of Representatives never approved.”
Obi specifically highlighted “an outrageous requirement for a mandatory 20 per cent deposit before appeals can be heard in court, asset sales without judicial oversight, and the granting of arrest powers to tax authorities.”
His most pointed question: “Who made these alterations? All of this must be made public. Nigerians need to understand what was signed, what was passed, and what was formally recorded. We cannot continue to ask citizens to pay more taxes while trust in governance collapses.”
The Specific Alleged Changes
Based on available information, the alleged alterations fall into two categories:
Deletions: Vital provisions concerning oversight and accountability that were initially approved by lawmakers were reportedly removed from the final Acts. These safeguards were presumably designed to protect taxpayers and ensure proper governance of the tax system.
Insertions: New coercive clauses that allegedly weren’t part of the parliamentary version include:
- Arrest powers for tax authorities
- Garnishee orders without court approval
- Compulsory USD computation requirements
- A mandatory 20% deposit before tax appeals can be heard in court
- Asset sales without judicial oversight
- Express power to take over property for non-compliance
If these claims are accurate, the alterations fundamentally shift the balance of power from taxpayers to tax authorities, removing judicial oversight and creating enforcement mechanisms that bypass courts entirely.
The Constitutional Question
The ADC framed the issue in stark constitutional terms: “Altering legislation and gazetting it after it has been passed by 469 elected representatives of the Nigerian people is a direct assault on constitutional governance. It is indicative of totalitarian tendencies by a president seeking to concentrate power, even if it means violating the constitution from which he derives his authority.”
This touches on a fundamental principle of democratic governance—the separation of powers. If the executive branch can alter legislation after it’s been passed by the legislature, the entire constitutional framework collapses. Laws would become whatever the executive wants them to be, regardless of what parliament approved.
The Take-It-Back Movement’s National Coordinator, Juwon Sanyaolu, described the alleged alteration as “a continuation of impunity by the Tinubu-led administration,” arguing that the policy was designed to exploit ordinary Nigerians. “The law itself is primarily targeted against the people of Nigeria. This tax reform seeks to exploit about 90 per cent of the population,” he said.
Who Could Have Made the Changes?
This is where the controversy becomes most mysterious and most serious. Several scenarios are theoretically possible:
Scenario 1: No Changes Were Made The Presidency’s position—that the allegations are baseless and the gazetted laws match what parliament passed. In this scenario, opposition members are either mistaken or deliberately creating controversy.
Scenario 2: Administrative Error Changes occurred through clerical mistakes during the process of preparing documents for gazette. This would be incompetence rather than conspiracy, but still serious.
Scenario 3: Deliberate Alteration by Unknown Actors Someone in the executive chain—potentially in the Attorney General’s office, the Ministry of Finance, or elsewhere—made intentional changes between legislative passage and gazette publication.
Scenario 4: Presidential Involvement The most serious allegation—that changes were made at the direction or with the knowledge of the President or his closest advisors.
The Presidency has not directly answered the question of who had access to the documents between passage and gazette, or what the chain of custody looked like. This silence, more than any specific denial, fuels suspicion.
The Broader Context: Trust and Governance
Peter Obi captured perhaps the most important dimension of this controversy: “We cannot continue to ask citizens to pay more taxes while trust in governance collapses.”
Nigeria is asking citizens to shoulder increased tax burdens through these reforms. The government argues this is necessary for development and fiscal sustainability. But that request depends on trust—trust that the government will use tax revenues properly, trust that the tax system will be fair, and most fundamentally, trust that the government operates within the rule of law.
If laws can be secretly altered after parliament passes them, that trust evaporates. Citizens are left wondering: What other laws have been changed? What other processes have been corrupted? Can anything the government says be believed?
What Happens Next?
The House ad hoc committee’s investigation becomes crucial. Its findings will either vindicate the Presidency or confirm a constitutional crisis. But several challenges complicate this investigation:
First, documentary evidence. The committee must obtain the original versions passed by both chambers, the versions signed by the President, and the gazetted versions. Any discrepancies must be identified and explained.
Second, testimony. Who handled the documents between passage and publication? What was the chain of custody? Who had authority to make changes, and were any changes made?
Third, intent. If changes were made, were they deliberate or accidental? Who authorized them?
Fourth, remedy. If unauthorized changes occurred, what’s the constitutional remedy? Do the laws need to be re-passed? Can they be implemented at all?
Meanwhile, January 1, 2026 approaches. The Presidency insists implementation will proceed regardless of the controversy. Opposition forces demand suspension pending investigation. And ordinary Nigerians, who will ultimately bear the tax burden, watch nervously as their leaders fight over whether the laws they’re expected to obey were even properly enacted.
The Answer: We Don’t Know—Yet
The honest answer to “Who altered Nigeria’s tax laws?” is that we don’t definitively know. We have allegations from opposition lawmakers, denials from the Presidency, and an ongoing investigation that may or may not produce clear answers.
What we do know is that this controversy has exposed deep mistrust between Nigeria’s political actors and serious questions about institutional integrity. Whether the allegations prove true or false, the damage to public confidence may already be done.
As the January 1 deadline approaches, one thing is certain: Nigeria is implementing major tax reforms amid a cloud of suspicion about their very legitimacy. That’s not how transformative fiscal policy should begin—and it’s a troubling sign of the state of Nigerian governance that we’ve arrived at this point at all.
The House investigation must be thorough, transparent, and definitive. Nigeria deserves to know not just whether changes were made, but by whom, why, and under what authority. Anything less leaves the country governing itself under laws whose legitimacy remains forever in doubt.