The National Assembly has officially confirmed serious discrepancies between the tax reform laws it passed and the versions later signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and gazetted. This confirmation comes through the release of Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the original legislation, which provide authoritative evidence of what lawmakers actually approved.
Discrepancies Validated by Official Documents
On Saturday, the House of Representatives, on the order of the Speaker and Senate President Godswill Akpabio, released the CTCs for four key tax Acts: the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; National Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025; and Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act, 2025. House spokesman Akin Rotimi stated this action was a direct response to public alarm over conflicting versions of the laws in circulation and a point of privilege raised by a member.
The controversy first surfaced when House member Abdulsamad Dasuki alleged during a plenary session that the gazetted laws differed from what was debated and passed. The bills, which underwent months of scrutiny including public hearings and clause-by-clause review in February before being harmonized with the Senate's version, were signed by President Tinubu on 26 June.
Key Areas of Alteration Revealed
A side-by-side review of the CTCs and the gazetted Acts reveals substantive, controversial changes. One major alteration is in Section 3 of the Nigeria Tax Administration Act. The National Assembly version explicitly tasked the Nigeria Revenue Service with administering taxes on petroleum operations and Value Added Tax (VAT), but these critical items are missing from the gazetted law.
Further significant changes were found in Section 29, governing financial disclosures. The lawmakers' version mandated annual returns with thresholds of N50 million for individuals and N250 million for companies, alongside specific safeguards. The gazetted Act switched this to quarterly reporting, slashed thresholds to N25 million and N100 million, and removed key taxpayer protections.
Perhaps the most striking addition is in the gazetted version's Sections 41(8) and 41(9), which are absent from the CTCs. These new provisions require taxpayers to deposit 20% of a disputed tax amount before appealing to the High Court and formalize a tiered appeal process up to the Supreme Court.
Erosion of Oversight and Expanded Powers
The discrepancies extend to enforcement and accountability. The CTCs show the version passed by lawmakers did not grant tax authorities arrest powers or allow them to appoint agents without a High Court order. However, the gazetted Act introduces arrest powers and broadens authority.
In the National Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, provisions for strong legislative oversight were removed. The NASS version required quarterly and annual reports to the Assembly and empowered lawmakers to summon the Executive Chairman. These accountability measures are missing from the gazetted law.
Funding sources were also altered. The House-passed version of the Joint Revenue Board Act listed defined funding sources, but the gazetted Act introduces vague additional contributions and removes explicit references to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for key bodies like the Tax Appeal Tribunal.
Public Reaction and Democratic Concerns
The release of the CTCs has fueled accusations of a deliberate subversion of the legislative process. Jamilu Charanchi, Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG), told The Guardian that the controversy stems from a deliberate policy choice by the presidency, not confusion. He argued that President Tinubu is implementing a law fundamentally different from what the National Assembly approved and what Nigerians agreed upon through their representatives.
Charanchi emphasized that the divergence raises serious questions about whose interests the reforms serve and weakens democratic norms. He urged the National Assembly to assert its constitutional role and ensure only the duly passed version of the laws is implemented, warning that policies imposed without popular consent deepen public distrust in government institutions.
