Headlines
Bill Seeking Immunity for Lawmakers Passes Second Reading in House of Reps
A bill that would grant immunity to the presiding officers of the National and State Assemblies narrowly scaled second reading in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The bill seeks to amend Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.
Section 308 of the Constitution shields the quartet of the president, the vice president, state governors and their deputies, for their period in office, from all forms of civil and criminal prosecution.
The sponsor of the bill, Odebunmi Olusegun of Ogo-Oluwa/Surulere federal constituency (APC, Oyo), wants the presiding officers of the federal and state houses to enjoy similar privilege for them to shrug off “frivolous suits while in office.”
Mr Olusegun argued that the bill is targeted at avoiding distraction for the leadership of the legislative arm. He said it is his aim to “protect, stabilize the house” and ensure “our democracy continues to flourish at national and state levels.”
Proponents
Toby Okechukwu (PDP, Enugu) pitched his tent with the bill’s sponsor. He said, if passed, the bill would shield presiding officers from the prying eyes of witch hunters.
He argued that once the leadership of the legislature is protected from possible blackmail while in office, then they can do their job without fear. He urged his colleagues to give their nod to the bill and allow Nigerians to decide during its public hearing.
Nkem-Abonta Uzoma (PDP, Abia) took off from where Mr Okechukwu stopped. He argued that the bill is not about the sitting speaker but the office itself. He said any criminal blemish ascribed to the office of the Speaker would cast the entire House in a bad light.
If the president, his deputy, state governors and their deputies can enjoy immunity, why can’t the leadership of the National Assembly, he asked.
“Let us protect the (legislative) institution from institutional embarrassment with suits, arraignment from the EFCC, CCB, ICPC,” he said after which the Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, cut in.
The Speaker buttressed this by saying potential lawsuits against a presiding officer can come not only from agencies of the executive but also from individuals.
Opponents
Minority Leader Ndudi Elumelu (PDP, Delta) begged to differ. He said the bill should not be allowed as it is coming at the wrong time because “people should be held accountable for their actions.”
He called for the bill to be jettisoned and that attention should be redirected to tackle insecurity ravaging the country.
Also, Sergius Ogun (PDP, Edo) frowned at the bill. He said if he had his way, he would “remove the immunity the president and the governors enjoy.”
“As parliamentarians, I do not believe this is what we need today. We should lift the immunity that presidents and the governors enjoy. There is no reason why a sitting president or governor should not go to jail,” Mr Ogun noted.
As Mr Ogun rounded off, House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila asked: “Is the head of the executive covered by immunity? And directly or indirectly, is the head of the judiciary covered by immunity?”
To that, he got a response in the affirmative. He then said he asked to weigh the various angles to the debate at hand. He called for equity in terms of privileges enjoyed by the each arms of government.
While the debate lasted, Mr Gbajabiamila said he was against the bill and was not willing to benefit from the privileges the bill might bring. He, therefore, suggested that the bill, should it be passed and assented to, would not take effect while the current leadership is in office.
In 2016, the same bill was read on the floor of the lower house. It came in the wake of the charges filed against former Senate President Bukola Saraki by the Code of Conduct Bureau during the eighth assembly. It was, however, thrown out, having divided the House over whether or not it should be passed.
Mr Gbajabiamila, then Majority Leader, was one of the fierce opponents of the bill.
The bill, however, still has a long way to go to become law. It will still pass through a public hearing and is expected to be included among the issues to be debated by a National Assembly committee to review the Constitution. The Senate is also yet to debate the bill.
Group Condemns Bill
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has condemned Tuesday’s passing of the bill.
Responding to the development, SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “Providing immunity for presiding officers against crimes of corruption is tantamount to ripping up the constitution. It’s a blatant assault on the rule of law and breach of public trust.”
SERAP said: “The leadership of the House of Representatives must immediately withdraw this obnoxious bill. We will vigorously challenge this impunity.”
The statement read in part: “It’s a huge setback for the rule of law that the same privileged and powerful leaders of parliament that regularly make laws that consign ordinary, powerless Nigerians to prison for even trivial offences yet again want to establish elite immunity to protect themselves from any consequences for serious crimes of corruption and money laundering.”
“Whereas countries like Guatemala has voted unanimously to strip their president of immunity from prosecution for corruption our own lawmakers are moving in the opposite direction.”
“The message seems to be that in Nigeria, powerful and influential actors must not be and are not subject to the rule of law. It’s simply not proper for lawmakers to be the chief advocates of immunity for corruption.”
“It’s a form of political corruption for the parliamentarians to abuse their legislative powers, intended for use in the public interest but instead for personal advantage. This is an unacceptable proposition as it gives the impression that both the principal officers of the National Assembly are above the law.”
“If the House of Representatives should have their way, this will rob Nigerians of their rights to accountable government.”
“Public officials who are genuinely committed to the well-being of the state and its people, and to the establishment of an effective and functioning system of administration of justice, should have absolutely nothing to fear.”
Premium Times
An Abuja High Court has cleared the way for the implementation of Nigeria’s new tax regime scheduled to commence on January 1, 2026, dismissing a suit seeking to halt the programme.
The ruling gives the Federal government, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the National Assembly full legal backing to proceed with the take-off of the new tax laws.
The suit was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of African Initiative for Abuse of Public Trustees, which dragged the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly before the court over alleged discrepancies in the recently enacted tax laws.
In an ex-parte motion, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the Federal Government, FIRS, the National Assembly and related agencies from implementing or enforcing the provisions of the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025; and the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025, pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The group also asked the court to restrain the President from implementing the laws in any part of the federation pending the hearing of its motion on notice.
However, in a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Kawu struck out the application, holding that it lacked merit and failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how the implementation of the new tax laws would occasion irreparable harm or violate any provision of the Constitution, stressing that matters of fiscal policy and economic reforms fall squarely within the powers of government.
Justice Kawu further held that once a law has been duly enacted and gazetted, any alleged errors or controversies can only be addressed through legislative amendment or a substantive court order, noting that disagreements over tax laws cannot stop the implementation of an existing law.
Consequently, the court affirmed that there was no legal impediment to the commencement of the new tax regime and directed that implementation should proceed as scheduled from January 1, 2026.
The new tax regime is anchored on four landmark tax reform bills signed into law in 2025 as part of the Federal Government’s broader fiscal and economic reform agenda aimed at boosting revenue, simplifying the tax system and reducing leakages.
The laws — the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025, and the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025 — consolidate and replace several existing tax statutes, including laws governing companies income tax, personal income tax, value added tax, capital gains tax and stamp duties.
Key elements of the reforms include the harmonisation of multiple taxes into a more streamlined framework, expansion of the tax base, protection for low-income earners and small businesses, and the introduction of modern, technology-driven tax administration systems such as digital filing and electronic compliance monitoring.
The reforms also provide for the restructuring of federal tax administration, including the creation of the Nigeria Revenue Service, to strengthen efficiency, coordination and revenue collection across government levels.
While the Federal government has described the reforms as critical to stabilising public finances and funding infrastructure and social services, the laws have generated intense public debate, with some civil society groups and political actors alleging discrepancies between the versions passed by the National Assembly and those later gazetted.
These concerns sparked calls for suspension, re-gazetting and legal action, culminating in the suit dismissed by the Abuja High Court.
Reacting to the judgment, stakeholders described the ruling as a major boost for the reforms, saying it has removed all legal obstacles that could have delayed the implementation of the new tax framework.
Former governor of Anambra State, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 election, Mr. Peter Obi, has officially defected to the coalition-backed African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Obi announced the decision on Tuesday at an event held at the Nike Lake Resort, Enugu.
“We are ending this year with the hope that in 2026 we will begin a rescue journey,” Obi said.
The National Chairman of the ADC, David Mark, was among the attendees.
United States Representative Riley Moors has said further military strikes against Islamic State-linked militants in Nigeria could follow recent operations ordered by President Donald Trump, describing the actions as aimed at improving security and protecting Christian communities facing violence.
Moore made the remarks during a televised interview in which he addressed U.S. military strikes carried out on Christmas Day against militant targets in North-west Nigeria.
The strikes were conducted in coordination with the Nigerian government, according to U.S. and Nigerian officials.
“President Trump is not trying to bring war to Nigeria, he’s bringing peace and security to Nigeria and to the thousands of Christians who face horrific violence and death,” Moore said.
He said the Christmas Day strikes against Islamic State affiliates had provided hope to Christians in Nigeria, particularly in areas affected by repeated attacks during past festive periods.
According to U.S. authorities, the strikes targeted camps used by Islamic State-linked groups operating in parts of north-west Nigeria.
Nigerian officials confirmed that the operation was carried out with intelligence support from Nigerian security agencies as part of ongoing counter-terrorism cooperation between both countries.
The United States Africa Command said the operation was intended to degrade the operational capacity of extremist groups responsible for attacks on civilians and security forces.
Nigerian authorities have described the targeted groups as a threat to national security, noting their involvement in killings, kidnappings and raids on rural communities.
Moore said the strikes marked a shift from previous years in which attacks were carried out against civilians during the Christmas period. He said the U.S. administration was focused on preventing further violence by targeting militant groups before they could launch attacks.
U.S. officials have said the military action was carried out with the consent of the Nigerian government and formed part of broader security cooperation between the two countries. Nigeria has received intelligence, training and logistical support from international partners as it seeks to contain militant activity.
Moore had previously called for stronger international attention to attacks on Christian communities in Nigeria and has urged continued U.S. engagement in addressing extremist violence. He said further action would depend on developments on the ground and continued coordination with Nigerian authorities.
Nigerian officials have maintained that counter-terrorism operations are directed at armed groups threatening civilians, regardless of religion, and have reiterated their commitment to restoring security across affected regions.
1 Comment