Connect with us

Headlines

Court Empowers Tinubu to Implement New Tax Law Effective Jan 1

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headlines

ADC Presidential Primary: Hayatu-Deen Alleges Rigging, Withdraws from Results Announcement

Published

on

One of the presidential aspirants of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Mohammed Hayatu-Deen, says he will not attend the announcement of the party’s presidential primary election results, citing allegations of widespread vote rigging.

In a statement on his X handle on Tuesday, Hayatu-Deen expressed concern over reports of electoral irregularities from across the country.

The ADC aspirant noted that he witnessed some of the incidents.

“I will not be attending the announcement of the ADC Presidential Election Results today. I am concerned by reports from across the country of widespread vote rigging, some of which I myself observed, and will therefore be taking advice on my next steps,” the statement read.

The development comes amid keen competition for the ADC presidential ticket involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Minister of Transportation and former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, and Hayatu-Deen.

The ADC presidential primary election collation exercise will take place in Abuja. Results are expected from across the nation.

Ahead of the nationwide presidential primary held on Monday, the ADC had urged aspirants, party leaders, delegates, and members to conduct themselves peacefully and uphold party unity.

In a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, described the exercise as a defining moment for both the ADC and Nigerians seeking a credible political alternative.

According to him, the party remained committed to internal democracy and a transparent leadership selection process.

“The ADC remains proud to stand today as the only truly democratic party in Nigeria because it is the only political party whose choice of presidential candidate is determined through open primaries,” Abdullahi stated.

The party also stressed that the conduct of aspirants and party members during the exercise would reflect the leadership culture the ADC seeks to promote.

Continue Reading

Headlines

You’re Not Different from APC, INEC, Amaechi Slams ADC, Rejects Presidential Primary Results

Published

on

A former Minister of Transportation, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, has rejected the results of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential primaries, alleging widespread voter disenfranchisement and electoral malpractice.

Amaechi, in a statement posted on his X handle on Tuesday, described the outcome of the exercise as “concocted results.”

He said he had earlier made it clear that he would only accept the outcome of the primaries if the process was free, fair and transparent.

“I will not accept results from a process that does not reflect the values that the ADC had pledged to uphold,” he said.

Amaechi alleged that about 80 percent of party members across the country were prevented from voting during the exercise.

“There’s no way that about eighty percent of members of the party were not allowed to vote, and you expect me to accept such results,” he stated.

The former Governor of Rivers State accused the party of engaging in practices it had previously condemned in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

According to him, the ADC cannot criticize vote buying, rigging and manipulation of election results by others while allegedly engaging in similar acts during its own primary.

Amaechi added that the development was unacceptable and contrary to the ideals upon which the party was founded.

Continue Reading

Headlines

Court Clears Jonathan to Contest 2027 Presidential Election

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit seeking to bar former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, effectively clearing the way for him to participate in the polls if he chooses to run.

Justice Peter Lifu, who delivered judgment in the matter, held that the suit instituted by Johnmary Jideobi lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of court process.

The court further ruled that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the suit, noting that he failed to show how Jonathan’s possible participation in the election directly affected his interest.

Justice Lifu consequently awarded a total cost of N21 million against the plaintiff — N20 million in favour of Jonathan and N1 million in favour of the Attorney General of the Federation.

The judge described the suit as frivolous and a waste of judicial time, particularly after previous courts had already dismissed similar cases on the same subject.

He cited earlier judgments in Andy Solomon v. Jonathan at the Federal High Court and Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan at the Court of Appeal, aligning with the decisions and stating that he had “nothing else to add.”

Justice Lifu also expressed dismay that the plaintiff and his counsel continued with the suit despite being aware of the earlier judgments.

The suit, filed in October 2025, sought a determination on whether Jonathan remained constitutionally eligible to contest the presidency in 2027.

The plaintiff argued that Jonathan had exhausted the constitutional two-term limit under Sections 1(1), (2), (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, having completed the unexpired tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua between 2010 and 2011 before serving a full four-year term after winning the 2011 presidential election.

Jideobi had asked the court to restrain Jonathan from presenting himself as a presidential candidate and to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing his name as a candidate in the 2027 election or any future presidential contest.
The plaintiff also sought an order directing the Attorney General of the Federation to enforce the requested injunctions if granted.

During proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff maintained that Jonathan had served more than twice in office and was therefore constitutionally barred from seeking another term as president.
Jonathan, INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation were listed as defendants in the suit.

Continue Reading