THESHIELD Garkuwa
Related Articles
By Sanusi A. S. Maikudi
Nigeria is increasingly being governed in a manner that combines policy arrogance with fiscal greed, where laws are imposed rather than debated, and where public concerns are met with defensiveness instead of reflection. The controversy surrounding Nigeria’s new Tax Acts has exposed a deeper malaise in governance: a troubling shift toward ruling via executive fiat, with little regard for evidence, context, or the lived realities of citizens and businesses.
This posture became evident following observations by KPMG, the globally respected accounting and audit firm, and a widely circulated analytical post by Dr. Baridueh Badon, a Germany-based Nigerian professional, who compared the social returns of taxation in advanced economies with the Nigerian experience. Both interventions raised legitimate questions about design, context, and outcomes of the new tax regime. Rather than engaging these issues constructively, the official response from the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, chaired by Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, was largely dismissive and defensive, projecting an attitude that the Acts were already perfected — as if divinely cast in stone and beyond improvement.
Such a stance is inimical to democratic governance. Ruling without listening is ruling via executive fiat, not reform.
One of the substantive concerns raised is the striking resemblance between Nigeria’s new Tax Acts and elements of the United Kingdom’s tax framework. Comparative review reveals similarities in structure, compliance expectations, enforcement logic, and administrative assumptions. Borrowing legal architecture is not inherently wrong; many countries adapt foreign models. However, the problem arises when form is imported without function.
The UK tax system operates within a state that guarantees security, electricity, water, transport infrastructure, healthcare, and regulatory predictability. Nigeria does not. Nigerian households and enterprises must self-provide power, security, water, and logistics, while navigating dilapidated infrastructure and regulatory uncertainty. To impose a tax regime modelled on advanced economies without first delivering the foundational public goods that justify taxation is not reform — it is fiscal extraction.
The Federal Government’s repeated justification that Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the world is therefore misplaced. While statistically correct, the argument is conceptually shallow. Tax ratios cannot be divorced from the social contract. Where citizens already finance what the state should provide, low tax compliance reflects rational response to governance failure, not civic irresponsibility. The issue is not undertaxation but poor value-for-money and weak public service delivery.
This disconnect undermines Nigeria’s oft-repeated claims of promoting ease of doing business and attracting foreign investment. Investors are influenced less by official rhetoric and more by infrastructure quality, institutional credibility, transparency, and policy stability. A tax system that expands obligations without addressing structural bottlenecks sends a discouraging signal to both domestic and foreign investors.
The credibility gap widens further when viewed against the backdrop of the 2023 petroleum subsidy removal. Nigerians were assured that subsidy removal would unlock massive fiscal savings to be reinvested in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social protection. Yet to date, there is no clear, independently verifiable account of how much has accrued or been saved, nor is there compelling evidence of commensurate improvements in public services. Instead, citizens face escalating living costs, shrinking real incomes, and deepening poverty. The absence of evidence-based impact assessment represents not just policy failure but a betrayal of public trust.
Even more damaging is the unresolved crisis of legal credibility surrounding the Tax Acts themselves. As publicly alleged by Hon. Dasuki of the House of Representatives, the Acts were altered after being duly passed by the National Assembly but before gazetting. If true, this constitutes a grave abuse of constitutional process and legislative authority. Disturbingly, neither the leadership of the National Assembly nor the Presidency has instituted a transparent investigation to identify and sanction those responsible. No accountability has followed.
When laws can be surreptitiously altered without consequence, the rule of law is eroded. Without deterrence, similar infractions will recur. Governance conducted under such opacity breeds cynicism, weakens institutions, and delegitimizes reform efforts.
For Nigeria to restore confidence, the Federal Government and its agents must return to the basic tenets of good governance: responsiveness to citizens and experts, transparency in fiscal matters, accountability for institutional misconduct, and humility to revise policies when evidence demands. Tax reform must be grounded in Nigeria’s realities, not abstract ratios or imported templates.
Finally, the burden of the new tax regime has direct existential implications for households and enterprises. It is therefore imperative for Business Membership Organizations — including Chambers of Commerce, Labour Unions, trade and artisans’ associations, NASSI, NASME, and allied groups — to build synergy and engage collectively. Through coordinated advocacy, these bodies must demand reforms that protect livelihoods, support enterprise sustainability, and restore balance to Nigeria’s fragile social contract.
Reforms imposed without listening, accountability, and credibility cannot endure. Nigeria stands at a crossroads: it must choose between governance by arrogance and greed, or governance anchored in dialogue, evidence, and public trust.
Sanusi A. S. Maikudi, FNIM, CNBDSP
Managing Partner / CEO
New Frontiers Consultants Ltd
Kaduna, Nigeria
January 2026
