Null and Void: Atiku Declares Gazetted Tinubu Tax Act a Constitutional Nullity.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“How a Flawed Tax Law Threatens Nigeria’s Constitutional Order, Rule of Law and Economic Stability.”

In a development that has ignited a legal and constitutional firestorm in Nigeria’s political landscape, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has publicly declared that the recently gazetted Tinubu Tax Act is a nullity (a law without legal force) because the version published in the Federal Government Gazette does not reflect the version duly passed by the National Assembly. Atiku’s assertion is not mere political rhetoric; it is rooted in the constitutional framework of Nigeria, the sanctity of the law-making process, and the very foundations of democratic governance.

This explosive controversy transcends partisan politics and goes straight to the heart of constitutionalism: Can a law be deemed valid when it has been fundamentally altered after legislative passage, without the approval of the legislature itself? According to Atiku, the answer is resoundingly no.

Constitutional Foundations: What Makes Law Valid in Nigeria?
To understand Atiku’s argument, it is vital to grasp how a law is constitutionally enacted in Nigeria. Section 58 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outlines that the power to make laws resides with the National Assembly, and a bill must undergo a strict procedural sequence before it becomes law:

Passage in identical form by both Houses, the Senate and House of Representatives.

Presidential assent, the President must sign the bill within 30 days of submission.

Gazetting — publication in the Official Federal Government Gazette as evidence of law.

The Constitution does not grant any authority to amend, alter, or rewrite a bill after it has been passed by the legislature and assented to by the President. Gazetting is not a creative or amendatory act; it is an administrative publication of a law that should already be definitively passed and assented.

As one constitutional expert put it, “a law that was never passed in the form in which it was published is not law. It is a nullity.” This principle is not only rooted in domestic law but reflects global norms that legislative supremacy cannot be undermined by post-passage tinkering.

Atiku’s Charge: Nullity and Forgery, Not Clerical Error.
Atiku’s criticism of the Tinubu Tax Act goes beyond semantic or procedural quibbles; he asserts that the discrepancies between the gazetted version and the version passed by the National Assembly are so significant that they constitute forgery and illegality, not mere clerical errors.

In his statement, he declared unequivocally:
“A law that was never passed in the form in which it was published is not law. It is a nullity.”

He emphasised that any insertion, deletion, or modification of a bill after passage (without the approval of the legislature) is unconstitutional. Atiku warned that attempts to correct these discrepancies through administrative directives or rushed re-gazetting undermine parliamentary oversight and set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.

Atiku argued that no administrative directive from the Senate President or Speaker of the House can validate or cure a law that has been fundamentally altered after passage. The only lawful path, he says, is a fresh legislative process which re-passage by both chambers in identical form, followed by presidential assent and proper gazetting.

Constitutional Integrity Vs. Administrative Shortcuts.
Atiku’s stance highlights a larger constitutional doctrine central to democratic governance: the separation of powers. In a constitutional democracy, the legislature (representing the people) makes the laws; the executive executes them; and the judiciary interprets them. None can usurp the role of the other.

By suggesting that changes made after the National Assembly passed the Tax Act could be corrected administratively, federal officials appear to blur these distinctions. Atiku believes such “procedural shortcuts” threaten not just this particular law, but the legitimacy of the entire legislative process, creating a precedent where laws could be altered post-enactment without democratic sanction.

This is more than theoretical. Human rights and governance experts have warned that if the law-making process is not transparent, predictable, and fully constitutional, it can violate the rule of law and a cornerstone of democratic societies and a requirement under both the Nigerian constitution and international human rights law.

Economic and Governance Implications.
Beyond constitutional chaos, the controversy has immediate economic implications. The Tinubu Tax Act includes sweeping reforms to Nigeria’s tax regime, affecting individuals, businesses, and multinationals. The law was slated to take effect on January 1, 2026. Its disruption could create uncertainty for tax administration, compliance planning and investor confidence.

Critics say enforcing a potentially invalid law could lead to a flood of litigation, paralysis of tax authorities, and inconsistent enforcement. Some legal scholars argue that this sort of uncertainty erodes public trust and could chill economic activity which is also a particularly dangerous outcome for a country struggling with revenue generation and economic instability.

Counterarguments and Legal Debate.
Not everyone agrees with Atiku’s position. Some legal scholars and policymakers argue that once a law has been gazetted, it becomes authoritative and enforceable, even if discrepancies exist. This view holds that the gazetted text is what courts and tax authorities will recognise as the legal standard unless a court determines otherwise.

Yet, even under this argument, the lack of a mechanism to correct post-passage alterations without returning to the legislature underscores the real constitutional dilemma. There is no clear statutory or constitutional basis for correcting errors once a law is gazetted without revisiting the legislature.

This legal uncertainty was exemplified in past cases where courts have emphasised adherence to constitutional processes over procedural expediency and a reminder that the rule of law must prevail over political convenience.

Broader Democratic Stakes.
Atiku’s declaration frames this crisis not merely as a technical legal dispute, but as an existential moment for Nigeria’s democracy. If a government can retroactively alter legislation outside the constitutionally prescribed procedure, then legislative supremacy (and therefore popular sovereignty) is at risk.

As the eminent constitutional scholar Ali Ahmad, has consistently argued, the essence of constitutional democracy lies in the clear demarcation of powers and adherence to procedural legitimacy, without which public trust and democratic governance are severely undermined.

In a broader sense, what may seem like a dispute over text and process is deeply linked to public confidence in governance institutions and the belief that the people’s representatives (not the executive or administrative clerks) hold the power to make laws.

Final Take: A Constitutional Battle for the Soul of Nigeria.
The controversy surrounding the Tinubu Tax Act is more than about tax policy; it’s about constitutional fidelity, legislative integrity, and the rule of law. Atiku Abubakar’s declaration that the gazetted act is a nullity has thrust Nigeria into a constitutional reckoning that could redefine the balance of power between its branches of government.

As Nigeria grapples with this challenge, the stakes could not be higher. If constitutional processes are circumvented or eroded, it may set a precedent that weakens democratic structures and erodes public faith in the system. Conversely, upholding the constitutional process (even if it means delaying or revisiting key reforms) could reinforce the rule of law and strengthen democratic governance.

In the words of Atiku himself, “ILLEGALITY CANNOT BE CURED BY SPEED.” That sentiment, echoed by constitutional scholars and governance experts alike, underscores the enduring principle that law must be legitimate to be respected, and respect for law is the bedrock of any democratic nation.