You Cannot Tax Nigerians Into Prosperity: A Scathing Call for Suspension of Tinubu’s Tax Law.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“How the National Opposition Movement Frames President Tinubu’s Tax Reform as an Economic Assault on the People of Nigeria.”

 

On 17 December 2025, the political and economic fault lines in Nigeria widened sharply when the National Opposition Movement (NOM) issued an unequivocal demand for the immediate suspension of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s new tax law, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. At a press conference held at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, NOM described the tax overhaul as punitive, exploitative and harmful to the everyday lives of ordinary Nigerians, warning that its implementation would exacerbate hardship, deepen inequality, heighten social tensions and erode national cohesion amid an already severe economic crisis.

This resounding opposition is not merely rhetorical dissent though it echoes grounded economic anxieties and taps into the lived realities of a populace grappling with rising food prices, escalating electricity tariffs, unemployment and a collapse of public services. To fully grasp the gravity of NOM’s demands, it is essential to contextualise the new tax law, examine the socioeconomic dynamics underpinning the backlash and assess its implications for Nigeria’s fraught political economy.

What Does the New Tax Law Entail? The tax reforms in question consist of a series of four legislative acts signed into law on 26 June 2025, namely:

Nigeria Tax Act

Nigeria Tax Administration Act

Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act

Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act
thesun.ng

Collectively, these laws envision a broadened tax base that mandates all Nigerian adults of taxable age (regardless of employment status) to file tax returns between January 1 and March 31, 2026, with penalties for non-compliance. Moreover, business owners are required to file tax returns for all employees, including those earning below the taxable threshold, a departure from previous practices.

Proponents including the Presidency and the Federal Government assert that the reforms will streamline tax administration, improve efficiency, broaden the revenue base, exempt genuine low-income earners and ultimately strengthen public finances. However, these stated benefits are deeply contested by critics who argue that the reforms fall far short of equitable and effective tax policy.

NOM’s Core Criticisms: An “Assault on the Poor”. At the heart of NOM’s criticism is the belief that the tax laws are not genuine reforms but an assault on the economic wellbeing and social security of Nigerians, especially the most vulnerable:

1. A Tax at the Worst Possible Time
NOM emphasises that Nigeria is in the throes of a multidimensional crisis, characterized by:

Rising poverty and homelessness

Food scarcity and high cost of living

Worsening insecurity

Declining purchasing power

In such conditions, adding fresh tax obligations (especially unaccompanied by improved services or social protections) is perceived as deeply insensitive and economically reckless.

As Dr. Amina Bello, Senior Fellow in Public Policy at the Centre for Economic Governance, recently observed, “Reforming taxation must start with equity, transparency, and capacity and not coercion. Taxing people into poverty only accelerates economic decay.”

2. Disproportionate Impact on the Poor and Vulnerable
Critics argue that the new regime will disproportionately harm low-income Nigerians. Despite government claims of exemptions for the poor, mandatory filings for unemployed adults and penalties for non-compliance are widely viewed as an undue burden on those already struggling to survive. Small and medium-sized businesses, already squeezed by inflation and weak demand, fear added bureaucratic costs and compliance liabilities.

Economist Professor Chukwuemeka Nnaji of the University of Lagos warned, “A tax system that compels returns from the unemployed, the underemployed, and those in the informal sector (without addressing their constraints) is not reform; it is a regressive extraction of what little remains.”

3. Weak Institutional Capacity
NOM highlighted Nigeria’s chronic institutional weaknesses; limited internet access, inefficient service delivery and widespread corruption within revenue agencies such as the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). The group criticised an undisclosed Memorandum of Understanding between FIRS and a French tax agency as lacking transparency and accountability.

This distrust is not unfounded. Transparency International’s latest assessments underscore longstanding concerns about governance failures and revenue mismanagement in Nigeria. Economist and governance expert Dr. Khadijah Ibrahim argues that “tax compliance must be built on trust; where institutions are opaque, taxation becomes synonymous with exploitation.”

4. Failure to Tie Taxation to Public Services
Another central criticism concerns the lack of direct, credible commitments that increased tax revenues will translate into improved public services. Nigerians continue to endure chronic electricity outages, deteriorating healthcare systems, poorly performing schools, and inadequate security. NOM contends that citizens are being asked to pay more without a guarantee of tangible returns in public welfare.

Public finance scholar Professor Olufemi Adesina summed it up:
“A tax system divorced from visible public benefit is a moral failing. Citizens pay taxes to see better roads, functional health systems, safety and opportunity, not to subsidise inefficiency.”

NOM’s Demands: Beyond Suspension. NOM’s call for suspension is accompanied by detailed policy prescriptions:

Immediate halt to the tax plan’s implementation

Nationwide consultations with labour unions, civil society, SMEs, professionals and state governments

Explicit social protection guarantees tied to any future tax reforms

A shift in tax focus toward luxury consumption, excess profits, monopolies and corrupt gains

Stronger legal safeguards to protect taxpayer rights

This reflects a desire for a more inclusive and equitable policy process, one that acknowledges economic realities and empowers citizens rather than penalizes them.

Political and Social Implications. NOM’s stance aligns with ongoing resistance from organised labour, including the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC), both of which have raised alarm over governance and economic policies under the Tinubu administration.

The opposition’s framing of the tax law as an “assault” signals deepening trust deficits between the government and significant segments of the public. Without dialogue and compromise, there is a tangible risk of escalating social unrest, strikes, and further fragmentation of national unity.

Defending Tax Reform and Or Misdiagnosing the Problem? Supporters of the tax reforms argue that Nigeria’s historical reliance on oil revenues has starved government coffers and that broadening the tax net is essential for sustainable fiscal policy. International financial institutions have long urged Nigerian administrations to strengthen domestic revenue mobilisation to reduce dependence on volatile oil earnings.

However, this perspective faces critical pushback: What use is a broader tax base if millions cannot afford basic necessities? If institutional corruption persists unchecked? If tax revenues do not translate into visible public goods?

This fundamental tension lies at the heart of the current crisis of confidence.

A Moment of National Choice: A Nation at a Crossroads. The demand to suspend Tinubu’s tax law is more than a political slogan—it is a clarion call for governance rooted in equity, accountability and public trust. As Nigeria approaches the implementation deadline, the administration faces a pivotal choice: engage in genuine dialogue and recalibrate policy, or risk deepening an already perilous socio-economic divide.

As Dr. Aisha Mohammed, an expert in fiscal policy, warned, “Tax reform cannot be a dagger aimed at the poor. It must be a bridge to shared prosperity.”

In the final analysis, Nigerians should not be taxed into poverty; they must be taxed toward prosperity; where taxation and service delivery form a pact of mutual accountability and where no citizen is left to shoulder the weight of systemic failures alone.