Gazetted Tax Laws: Will a House Divided against Itself Stand?

The controversy surrounding the four gazetted tax laws has continued to pitch the Minority caucus of the House of Representatives against the leadership of the Green Chamber. Adedayo Akinwale writes.

The relative peace enjoyed in the House of Representatives may soon give way if the issue of the altered gazetted tax laws that have continued to generate a lot of controversy is not well handled between some opposition lawmakers in the Green Chamber and the leadership of the House.

Recall that during a recent plenary, Hon. Abdulsamad Dasuki raised the alarm on the floor of the House that there were discrepancies between the tax laws recently passed and assented to by President Bola Tinubu and the gazetted version.

Following the outcry, the Speaker, Hon. Abbas Tajudeen ordered an internal verification and immediate public release of the Certified Acts to eliminate doubts, restore clarity, and protect the sanctity of the legislature.

The four Acts thus released included The Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; The Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; The National Revenue Service ( Establishment) Act, 2025 and The Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act, 2025.

However, the Minority Caucus under the leadership of Hon. Kingsley Chinda, on January 2, 2026, set up a seven-man Fact-finding Committee  to help the Caucus get to the roots of all the issues surrounding the scandal.

The committee, which was led by Hon. Afam Ogene also has Hon. Aliyu Garu, Hon. Stanley Adedeji, Hon. Ibe Osonwa, Hon. Marie Ebikake, Hon. Shehu Fagge  and Hon. Gbefwi Jonathan as members.

The committee unconditionally vowed to protect the independence of the legislature and the democracy. It added that any attempt to foist fake laws on Nigerians was an attack on the independence and constitutional role of the National Assembly in safeguarding Nigeria’s democracy.

In its interim report released last Friday, the Minority Caucus of the House maintained that the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA) 2025, has a number of discrepancies from the version passed by the National Assembly and the version earlier published in the official gazette.

The committee explained that these discrepancies were obvious going by the released Certified True Copies (CTCs) by the House. The caucus pointed out that the alterations were a clear case of the Executive undermining legislative powers by illegally altering an already passed law to drag more taxpayers into the net.

Ogene noted that after comparing the Certified True Copies of the Acts released officially by the House of Representatives as directed by the Speaker, with the already gazetted version already in circulation, the tax law was indeed altered.

He said: “That there were some alterations as alleged by Hon. Dasuki on the floor of the House of Representatives, especially in the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025. There were three different versions of the documents in circulation, particularly the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025.

“The order to the Clerk of the National Assembly, to take steps to “aligning the Acts – duly passed, assented to, and certified – with the federal government Printing Press to ensure accuracy, conformity, and uniformity,” is a clear indication that there were some procedural anomalies in the previously gazetted version that illegally encroached on the core mandate of the National Assembly, as the only organ of government constitutionally empowered to make laws for the good of the people, as prescribed. This is a grave concern that would be deeply looked into.”

These discrepancies, Ogene noted, were obvious going by the released Certified True Copies (CTCs) by the House referenced earlier.

In addition, the minority caucus emphasised that it considered the alterations as an affront to the exclusive powers of the National Assembly to make laws.

For instance, the cause explained that under  “Section 39(3): Currency of Tax Computation, the illegally altered gazetted Act mandated that tax computations for petroleum operations be made in US Dollars.

“But in the actual version passed by the National Assembly, it prescribed tax calculations in the currency of the transaction,” Ogene said.

The caucus said given the anomalies, illegalities, and impunity observed, which clearly undermine the National Assembly’s constitutional powers and democracy, the Committee found the current evidence sufficient to warrant a deeper investigation.

Expectedly, the leadership of the House said that the ad-hoc committee on altered tax law constituted by the Minority Caucus of the House lacked institutional authority.

Spokesperson of the House, Hon. Akin Rotimi in a statement said while the House recognised the legitimate role of the minority caucus within parliamentary democracy and affirmed its right to express dissenting opinions, engage in policy advocacy, and raise public concerns, it was necessary to clearly distinguish between political activities and the formal parliamentary processes of the House.

Citing Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (Eleventh Edition), Rotimi stressed that the authority to constitute an ad hoc committee of the House rests solely with the House acting in plenary, or with the Speaker exercising powers conferred under the Standing Orders.

To this end, he said no political caucus, whether majority or minority, possesses the procedural authority to establish a committee that carries the status of a parliamentary body.

While political caucuses remain important platforms for consultation and coordination among members, the House however said they do not possess institutional and investigative authority, oversight jurisdiction, or the power to summon persons or demand official documents.

The House noted that any action taken by a caucus in this regard is therefore “non-binding, informal, and without legal or institutional consequence.”

“Any committee constituted outside the processes prescribed by the Standing Orders lacks institutional recognition. Accordingly, any interim or final report emanating from such a caucus-led body cannot be laid before the House, cannot be received as a parliamentary document, and does not form part of the official legislative or oversight record of the National Assembly,” Rotimi further said.

The Green Chamber said it considered the action attributed to the minority caucus to be procedurally improper, inconsistent with parliamentary norms, liable to set an unwholesome precedent, and to create unnecessary public confusion, particularly since the matter had been addressed through established parliamentary mechanisms.

The House recalled that in December, 2025, it duly constituted a bipartisan ad hoc committee following the intervention of an opposition member who formally drew the attention of the House to the existence of multiple documents purporting to be official gazettes of the tax legislation.

The spokesperson noted that the mandate of that committee, which comprised members from both the ruling and opposition parties, is specifically to examine those allegations. He said upon the conclusion of its work, it would lay its report before the House in plenary.

Subsequently, the National Assembly, acting jointly through both Chambers, published the official Gazette of the National Assembly and issued Certified True Copies of the enacted tax laws. The legislative process has therefore been concluded and given full legal effect.

“In this context, the establishment of a parallel caucus-led committee and the circulation of purported interim findings serve only to compound public misunderstanding on an issue that has been institutionally resolved and overtaken by events,” Rotimi pointed out.

Observers believe that while opposition lawmakers have the constitutional rights to protect Nigerians from any form of executive rascality, the action of the House minority caucus to constitute a probe committee was, however, not in conformity with the rules of the Green Chamber.

They were also of the views that the caucus might be over-pushing its luck by setting up a parallel committee against the one set up by leadership of the House, warning that if it refuses to back down, it might lead to the suspension of the leaders of the minority caucus.

Be that as it may, the extent at which the leadership of the minority caucus would go to prove its point remains to be seen.