By Ali Elias
Atiku Abubakar alleges that Nigeria’s newly gazetted tax law was altered after passage by parliament, warning that the move amounts to a serious constitutional breach.
Former Vice President and presidential aspirant, Atiku Abubakar, has raised alarm over what he describes as the gazetting of a “fake” Tinubu Tax Act, arguing that the document released to the public differs materially from the version passed by the National Assembly. The development, he says, represents a grave constitutional violation with serious implications for Nigeria’s democracy and rule of law.
Speaking through his X (formerly Twitter) account, Abubakar emphasized that under Section 58 of the 1999 Constitution, a law becomes valid only after passage by both chambers of the National Assembly, presidential assent, and formal gazetting. Any post-passage modification without legislative approval, he argued, amounts to forgery and carries no legal force.
“A law that was never passed in the form in which it was published is not law. It is a nullity,” Abubakar wrote. He further warned that attempts to rush re-gazetting while delaying legislative investigations undermine parliamentary oversight and set a dangerous precedent.
Abubakar did not limit his critique to procedural irregularities. He described specific alleged alterations to the tax law as acts of treason against the Nigerian people, including the introduction of coercive powers for tax authorities, mandatory security deposits on tax appeals, and the forced computation of petroleum taxes in U.S. dollars.
Detailing the alleged illegal insertions, he highlights three categories of changes that he claims violate constitutional principles of legislative supremacy:
- New Coercive Powers: Provisions granting tax authorities the ability to arrest individuals, seize property, and garnish accounts without court orders. Atiku contends these turn tax officials into “quasi-law enforcement agencies,” eroding due process protections that lawmakers had intentionally preserved.
- Increased Financial Burdens: Measures like a mandatory 20% security deposit for tax appeals, compound interest on debts, quarterly reporting with lower thresholds, and forced USD computations for petroleum operations. These, he says, disproportionately burden ordinary Nigerians and businesses amid soaring inflation and unemployment.
- Removal of Accountability Mechanisms: Deletion of requirements for quarterly reports to the National Assembly, strategic planning submissions, and ministerial oversight—steps Atiku views as insulating the executive from scrutiny and veering toward “authoritarian governance.”
These measures, he argues, increase the financial burden on citizens and remove vital accountability mechanisms, stripping oversight from the National Assembly and consolidating power in the executive branch.
“This constitutional violation exposes a troubling reality: a government obsessed with imposing ever-increasing tax burdens on impoverished Nigerians rather than creating conditions for prosperity,” he stated, highlighting the erosion of due process and economic safeguards.
In his public call to action, Abubakar urged the executive to suspend the implementation of the disputed tax law ahead of its January 1, 2026, effective date. He also called on the National Assembly to correct the illegal alterations, the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional provisions, and civil society to mobilize against the breach of democratic principles. Additionally, he demanded that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigate and prosecute anyone involved in the irregular alteration of Nigeria’s tax legislation.
Abubakar concluded that failure to uphold the integrity of the legislative process risks arbitrary governance, undermines citizen trust, and could further weaken Nigeria’s economic and political institutions.
Implications for Nigeria on the Global Stage
Such a high-profile challenge to the legitimacy of a national tax law resonates far beyond Nigeria’s borders. For international investors and global institutions, the dispute highlights systemic governance risks, including executive overreach, weak parliamentary enforcement, and potential erosion of rule-of-law standards. Persistent legal uncertainty over fiscal policies can undermine investor confidence, deter foreign direct investment, and raise the cost of doing business. Furthermore, perceived disregard for constitutional norms can negatively affect Nigeria’s international image as a democratic and investment-friendly nation, potentially influencing credit ratings, trade negotiations, and multilateral partnerships.