A famous legal professor, Auwalu H. Yadudu, has expressed severe concerns over reported differences between National Assembly tax rules and federal government versions, warning that the scenario undermines constitutional governance and legislative authority.
Prof. Yadudu said in a commentary that his review of a document comparing lawmakers’ Acts to gazetted copies led him to a “inescapable conclusion” that Executive arm elements may have changed the laws without legislative approval, Daily Trust reports.
Rep. Abdussamad Dasuki (Kebbe/Tambuwal Federal Constituency) raised a parliamentary privilege motion in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
Dasuki informed MPs that gazetted copies of four tax measures had been revised after discussions, public hearings, and harmonisation by both chambers.
Yadudu said the purported changes imperil constitutional government.
How else can one explain comprehensive examination and amendment of laws that were openly debated, subjected to public hearings, and formally approved to introduce wholly new sections or remove legitimately adopted ones?
He criticized the Nigeria Tax Administration Act’s petroleum income tax and value added tax sections, saying they no longer reflect lawmakers’ intent.
He further pointed out that the gazetted law requires tax computations to be done in the US dollar only, unlike the National Assembly’s version, which allows calculations in any currency relevant to the transaction.
Yadudu also worries about a new rule that requires people to pay 20% of a contested tax assessment before appealing.
He noted that the provision was not in the legislature’s law and raised constitutional concerns.
He also criticized sections allowing tax agents to garnish without judicial rulings.
As the National Assembly version of the law requires court approval, he said that it diminishes due process and judicial control.
“These are only a few of the discrepancies observed,” Yadudu added, adding that other tax reform bills may have problems.
He said the issue had “utterly undermined” tax reform credibility and public confidence.
The law professor proposed a transparent National Assembly investigation into how and who authorized the alterations.
He also advocated prudence over the January 1, 2026 reform start date, stressing that executing laws with severe legal concerns could expose the government to needless judicial actions.
He warned that proceeding with these claims risks dignifying impunity and eroding parliamentary autonomy.
About the Author
