The ongoing discourse surrounding Nigeria’s proposed tax reform bills highlights a complex blend of concerns, clarifications, and aspirations for a more efficient tax system. As these bills progress through the National Assembly, debates have intensified regarding their implications on regional equity, fiscal federalism, and the funding of key government agencies. While critics raise alarms over potential regional disparities and agency disruptions, the presidency has consistently emphasized the reforms’ potential to simplify tax administration, reduce business burdens, and enhance the quality of life for all Nigerians.
At the heart of the controversy are four bills transmitted by President Bola Tinubu to the National Assembly in October 2024: the Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill, and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Bill. Together, these bills aim to consolidate Nigeria’s fragmented tax laws, establish clearer frameworks for administration, and create institutions like the Tax Appeal Tribunal and the Office of the Tax Ombudsman. These reforms reflect the federal government’s broader goal of overhauling a tax regime widely regarded as cumbersome and uncompetitive.
For decades, businesses in Nigeria have grappled with a myriad of taxes and levies, often earmarked to fund specific government agencies and initiatives. This multi-layered system has been criticized for overburdening the private sector, stifling investment, and discouraging economic growth. According to Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the reforms aim to address these challenges by streamlining taxes into a single consolidated levy. This levy would be shared among key agencies—such as the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND), the National Agency for Science and Technology Infrastructure (NASENI), and the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA)—in a phased manner until 2030.
Critics of the bills, however, have expressed concerns that the new tax structure could centralize fiscal authority, diminish state revenues, and disproportionately benefit economically robust states like Lagos and Rivers. These apprehensions have been particularly vocal among governors of Nigeria’s northern states. At a meeting on October 28, 2024, the Northern Governors’ Forum rejected the proposed derivation-based model for Value-Added Tax (VAT) distribution, arguing that it could undermine their regions’ financial autonomy. Three days later, the National Economic Council (NEC), comprising all 36 state governors, recommended withdrawing the bills for broader consultation.
President Tinubu, however, declined the withdrawal request, asserting that the legislative process could accommodate amendments and public input without halting progress. He encouraged stakeholders—governors, traditional rulers, civil society organizations, and professional associations—to participate in the public hearings organized by the National Assembly. The presidency maintains that the bills aim to foster nationwide development, not regional inequality.
A significant aspect of the debate revolves around the fate of agencies like TETFUND, NASENI, and NITDA. These entities, which play critical roles in promoting education, science, technology, and information development, are currently funded through taxes imposed on businesses. Critics have speculated that the reforms might lead to their dissolution by 2029. Onanuga has dismissed these claims as baseless, clarifying that the bills do not suggest scrapping these agencies but merely changing their funding sources.
“The tax reform bills will not make Lagos or Rivers more affluent and other parts of the country poorer,” Onanuga stated. “The bills will not destroy the economy of any section of the country. Instead, they aim to enhance the quality of life for Nigerians, especially the disadvantaged, who are trying to make a living.” He added that the transition to a consolidated tax system would align Nigeria’s tax practices with global standards and offer affected agencies ample time to explore alternative funding sources.
This reassurance underscores a broader objective: to modernize Nigeria’s tax administration and create a conducive environment for businesses. By reducing the tax burden, the government hopes to retain existing businesses, attract foreign investment, and stimulate economic growth. Critics, however, remain skeptical, cautioning that the reforms must not disrupt the delicate balance of fiscal federalism that underpins Nigeria’s economy.
The presidency has also addressed concerns about misinformation and divisive rhetoric surrounding the reforms. Onanuga criticized commentators who, he claimed, have incited public opposition based on unfounded allegations and polarized the country along regional lines. He urged stakeholders to base their arguments on facts rather than emotions, emphasizing the need for measured and constructive discourse.The proposed reforms, while controversial, represent a significant step toward addressing long-standing issues within Nigeria’s tax system. The current framework, marked by multiple overlapping taxes, has hindered economic competitiveness and fueled inefficiencies. Simplifying this system could pave the way for a more equitable and sustainable fiscal regime, provided it is implemented transparently and inclusively.
President Tinubu’s administration views these reforms as essential to achieving Nigeria’s developmental goals. However, balancing national priorities with regional sensitivities will require careful negotiation and collaboration. As the bills move through the legislative process, the government’s willingness to engage with diverse stakeholders will be crucial in shaping a tax system that serves the interests of all Nigerians.
In conclusion, the tax reform bills symbolize both an opportunity and a challenge. They offer the prospect of a streamlined, modernized tax regime capable of driving economic growth and improving public services. Yet, their success depends on addressing legitimate concerns, fostering inclusive dialogue, and ensuring that no region or sector is left behind. As public hearings and debates continue, the focus must remain on building consensus around a shared vision for Nigeria’s fiscal future.
Sources
