By NumbersNG Investigative Desk
Nigeria’s ongoing tax reform effort has been thrust into controversy following the emergence of a forensic comparison between the bill passed by the National Assembly and the version later gazetted into law. The findings suggest that substantive provisions were inserted, removed, or altered after legislative approval, raising serious constitutional, fiscal, and governance red flags.
At the heart of the controversy is a detailed clause-by-clause analysis titled “Tax Bill Alteration/Change Analysis – Comparing House Version vs Gazetted Version”, which identifies at least six major changes that cannot reasonably be classified as clerical corrections.
If verified, the implications are profound: laws may have been rewritten after Parliament adjourned.
From Law-Making to Law-Altering?
Nigeria’s Constitution is explicit. Under Sections 4 and 58, only the National Assembly has the authority to make or amend laws, and any bill must pass through both chambers before presidential assent. Once signed, the law is meant to be gazetted exactly as passed.
The comparative analysis suggests this process may not have been followed.
Instead, what appears to have occurred is a quiet restructuring of core tax provisions, affecting petroleum taxation, VAT administration, access to justice, enforcement powers, and currency computation, areas with direct economic and constitutional consequences.
Key Alteration 1: A Silent Switch in the Legal Foundation
The House version of the bill anchored key administrative powers under Clause 23 of the Nigerian Revenue Service Bill. In the gazetted Act, this clause is reportedly replaced with Section 26 of the Nigerian Revenue Service Act 2025.
This is not a renumbering exercise.
By changing the operative provision, the gazetted version introduces a new legal basis for tax administration, potentially altering reporting obligations and enforcement scope. Legal experts note that such a switch redefines the powers of the tax authority and should only occur through legislative debate, not post-passage substitution.
Key Alteration 2: Disappearing Petroleum Tax and VAT References
Perhaps more troubling is the outright deletion of references to:
“taxation of income from petroleum operations”, and
“value added tax”
from a subsection that originally listed the taxes administered by the Service.
Why this matters:
Petroleum income tax and VAT are two of Nigeria’s most critical revenue streams. Their removal from explicit administrative listings creates internal contradictions within the same law, especially as VAT still appears in other provisions.
The result?
A legal grey area that could fuel federal-state disputes, weaken tax enforcement, and invite constitutional litigation.
Key Alteration 3: Mandatory Dollarisation of Petroleum Tax Computations
Under the House version, companies were allowed to compute petroleum-related taxes in the currency of their transaction. The gazetted version reportedly mandates exclusive computation in US dollars.
This change:
- Increases foreign exchange exposure,
- Alters compliance and accounting systems,
- Materially affects multinational operators using non-USD currencies.
Such a shift is a fiscal policy decision, not an editorial fix, and yet there is no record of parliamentary debate approving it.
Key Alteration 4: Pay Before You Appeal
A newly inserted provision now requires taxpayers appealing to the High Court to deposit 20 per cent of the disputed tax amount before their case can be heard.
This clause was not in the House version.
Legal analysts warn that this creates:
- A financial barrier to justice,
- A chilling effect on legitimate tax disputes,
- Potential conflict with constitutional guarantees of fair hearing.
Nigerian courts have previously struck down similar “pay-to-appeal” requirements.
Key Alteration 5: Expanded Enforcement Without Court Oversight
The gazetted version reportedly empowers the tax authority to:
- Appoint agents,
- Garnish assets, and
- Enforce recovery
without a High Court order, a sharp departure from the House-approved safeguards.
While faster enforcement may appeal to revenue authorities, removing judicial oversight:
- Weakens taxpayer protections,
- Expands discretionary power,
- Increases the risk of abuse.
This directly implicates the constitutional right to property.
Key Alteration 6: Asset Sales Without Judicial Approval
Another alteration allows the Service to sell assets without a court order, while other tax authorities remain bound by judicial approval.
The creation of this two-tier enforcement regime raises questions about fairness, proportionality, and due process.
Why These Changes Matter
According to the review’s key findings:
- Substantive provisions were inserted, deleted, or modified after legislative passage.
- Oversight and accountability mechanisms approved by lawmakers were removed.
- New coercive powers were introduced without parliamentary approval.
These changes cannot be described as clerical or typographical.
If true, the legal consequence is stark: any provision not passed by the National Assembly is void.
A Constitutional Flashpoint
Post-passage alterations strike at the heart of democratic governance. They:
- Undermine the doctrine of separation of powers,
- Weaken legislative authority,
- Erode public confidence in law-making.
For investors, businesses, and taxpayers, the uncertainty is costly. A tax system perceived as procedurally compromised invites litigation, discourages compliance, and damages credibility.
The Questions Nigeria Must Now Answer
- Who authorised the changes between passage and gazetting?
- Were lawmakers aware of the alterations?
- Can laws be enforced if they differ from what Parliament approved?
- Will the National Assembly assert its constitutional authority?
Conclusion: Process Is Policy
Tax reform is essential, but how laws are made matters as much as what they contain. If Nigeria allows post-passage alterations to stand unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent: that legislation can be quietly rewritten outside democratic scrutiny.
For now, the evidence demands clarity, transparency, and urgent institutional review. Anything less risks turning tax reform into a constitutional crisis.
