Serious allegations have emerged over the material and substantial alteration of Nigeria’s Four Tax Bills, proposed by the Executive and passed into law by the National Assembly, after legislative approval but before their official publication in the gazette. These discrepancies, which differ from the Acts as duly passed, point to an alarming breach of legislative privilege and constitutional mandate.

The matter was formally raised on December 17, 2025, when Honourable Abdussamad Dasuki drew the attention of the House of Representatives to the issue, alleging that key provisions had been tampered with. This disclosure has led observers, including Professor Auwalu H. Yadudu, to conclude that an entity within the Executive arm of government may be attempting to usurp legislative authority, effectively advancing a tax reform agenda by executive fiat, in disregard of constitutional procedures.

Professor Yadudu identified several discrepancies, particularly within the Nigeria Tax Administration Act. For example, Section 3(1)(b) in the gazetted version allegedly deleted references to petroleum income tax and VAT, overturning an agreed legislative compromise and creating internal inconsistency. Section 39(3) was reportedly altered to mandate the exclusive use of the US dollar for tax computation, contrary to the passed Act, which permitted any transaction-related currency.

Additionally, a new Section 41(8) appeared in the gazette, requiring taxpayers to pay 20 per cent of a disputed tax assessment before filing an appeal, a provision critics argue is unconstitutional. Section 60(1) in the gazetted version reportedly grants absolute garnishee powers to tax authorities without judicial oversight, whereas the Act passed by the National Assembly expressly required a court order. Further anomalies were observed in Sections 60(4)–(5), which impose court-order requirements on some tax authorities while exempting others, contradicting the legislature’s intent that all tax authorities be subject to judicial authorization.

These revelations raise critical questions about who authorized such far-reaching changes to Acts debated and adopted in open legislative proceedings. Critics argue that the credibility of the entire tax reform agenda has been gravely undermined, with public trust—already fragile—further eroded by what they describe as surreptitious and unauthorized legislative rewriting. The alleged audacity and impunity with which executive power is being exercised to subvert legislative processes are described as deeply troubling and antithetical to constitutional governance.

The Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD) has echoed these concerns. In a statement signed by its Executive Director, YZ Ya’u, the organisation warned that the gazetted versions of the Tax Reform Acts materially differ from those debated and passed by the National Assembly. CITAD stressed that any alteration of an Act outside the constitutionally prescribed legislative process constitutes an unlawful intrusion into legislative authority and a violation of the separation of powers. The group highlighted changes relating to tax computation, appeal procedures, and enforcement powers, which appear to expand tax agency authority while weakening judicial oversight and taxpayer protections.

While welcoming the House of Representatives’ decision to set up an ad-hoc committee to investigate the matter, both Professor Yadudu and CITAD insist that further steps are necessary. CITAD outlined three urgent demands:
First, the immediate publication of the Votes and Proceedings, including relevant Hansard records, alongside the officially gazetted versions of the Tax Reform Acts, to enable independent verification.
Second, a thorough, transparent, and independent legislative investigation to determine what occurred, who authorized the alterations, when they were made, and under what authority.
Third, the immediate suspension of the implementation and enforcement of the Tax Reform Acts, including the proposed commencement date of January 1, 2026, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Both Yadudu and CITAD warn that proceeding with implementation under a cloud of alleged illegality is untenable and ill-advised, exposing the government to avoidable litigation, legal uncertainty, and further erosion of public confidence.

CITAD clarified that it is not opposed to tax reform itself, acknowledging Nigeria’s need for a fair, efficient, and modern tax system. However, the organisation maintains that no reform can endure if it is perceived to rest on unconstitutional processes or opaque practices.