Reliance on oil as the only source of revenue by successive governments in Nigeria has for long left the country in a dilemma of inadequacy of funds for development. Among other things, this encouraged the country to approach foreign creditors for huge loans that future generations may never be able to repay.

Taxes which other nations depend upon for development are unavailable because they are poorly collected and managed in Nigeria. For several years, nothing was done about this precarious situation until July 2023 when the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu decided to set up a Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms to be chaired by Taiwo Oyedele of the famous Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Following the work of the committee, Tinubu requested the National Assembly to pass 4tax reform proposals, namely: Nigeria Tax Bill, Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Bill and Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill. Almost immediately, many Nigerians mostly politicians started criticising the bills even before reading their contents.

The criticisms were as usual tailored along regional and religious lines thereby heating the polity unreasonably. Interestingly, the comments of the legislators, who were privileged to have received copies of the bills, showed that even they too had not read them. Yet, it was as if the bills which had divided legislators into two opposing camps in both chambers of the National Assembly had already been passed into law.

The posture of the legislators was not surprising because it has become fashionable for them to politicise every public policy with some of them falling on each other to demonstrate their purported closeness to the president. There was indeed, the impression that the present assembly had surpassed their immediate predecessors who told anyone that cared to hear that they would approve any request from former President Muhammadu Buhari. In the case of our current lawmakers, they appear ready to approve 5 even if only 4 bills were sent by Tinubu. Whereas collaborative federalism has its advantages, it is certainly harmful for sycophantic legislators to automatically approve executive requests without checking to remove inconsistencies or even grammatical errors in such requests.

The negative attitude of some legislators to the tax bills was thus informed by the fear that if care was not taken, they might not be read before they are passed. As one legislator said at an informal gathering, the other day, one needs to be watchful before the bills follow the pattern of the change of the national anthem. This background also explains the speed by which the tax bills found their way into the deliberations of the National Economic Council NEC, as well as the call by NEC for the bills to be withdrawn for further vetting before returning them to the National Assembly for deliberations. First, the NEC being an advisory body should not make such directive statements. Second, a bill does not have to be perfect before legislators can read and debate its contents. In fact, the inputs of legislators ought to enhance the quality of bills.

Instead of allowing interested citizens to express their views on the bills, almost every person who did not oppose the bills became an enemy to be condemned – a good example being the deputy senate president Barau Jubril. Even governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State was fiercely criticised for supposedly opposing the tax reform bill, only because he was one of those mandated to explain the position of the National Economic Council. Speaking later at a media chat in Ibadan, Makinde asserted that he was not opposed to the tax reform bills, but that the Federal Government needed to engage with a wider array of stakeholders to achieve a meaningful reform. He then counselled Nigerians to learn to focus on the message rather than the messenger.

While public comments on the bills suggests a step forward in making Nigeria become a communicating nation, citizens also need to understand the formal processes and procedures for policy making. Bills are not expected to be passed without an opportunity for the public to make comments. The flood of comments especially those made by people who are convinced that the bills could dismember the nation are therefore hasty. Why can’t sub-national governments, interest groups and other associations arrange rational dialogues that could produce superior arguments over some of the provisions of the bills? Instead, it appears that some of the negative comments and threats are no more than bogus alarms.

It is however true that stakeholder’s engagements on the bills have been scanty and incoherent. As a result, not many people are fully aware of the bills and what they convey. There is therefore no better time than now for societal institutions such as the National Orientation Agency NOA, to take the highlights of the bills to all nooks and cranny of the country. Luckily, the Agency’s current chief executive who appears greatly energised by an obvious synergy between him and the information minister is well positioned to take on mass mobilization of Nigerians with the purpose of convincing them to appreciate the objectives and merits of the tax bills. But more importantly, the federal government can easily get from NOA, robust feedback on the disposition of Nigerians concerning the bills.

For sure, not all Nigerians are opposed to the tax bills. Whereas a large number of those said to be opposed to the bills are Northerners, there are people in the region who appear to embrace the bills. A review of comments from the North breaks the region into 3 distinct groups; namely: those in favour of the bills, then those who are only partially opposed and lastly those who are totally opposed to the reforms. For those who are not opposed to the bills, there is Senator Diket Plang, representing Plateau South in the National Assembly, who has found it necessary to ‘urge Nigerians to support credible governance initiatives and avoid fear over tax reform proposals, regardless of their origin.’

Yakubu Dogara, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who also supports the bills made a scathing critique of Northern leadership, ‘accusing them of neglecting the region’s development despite decades of political dominance.’ He spoke at a town hall meeting organized by the Christian Awareness Initiative of Nigeria (CHAIN) in Kaduna, where the group resolved to support the tax reform initiative because of its benefits for the region and Nigeria at large. This group is slightly different from those who are only partially opposed to the bills. In this later groups are experts and stakeholders who at a roundtable discussion organized by the Kaduna Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (KADCCIMA) said they are partially opposing the proposed reforms because of fear of poor implementation.

On their part, the most influential group made of governors of the 19 northern states are unanimously opposed to the bills. At a meeting in Kaduna in October, the governors rejected the proposed tax bills which they said would jeopardise the well-being of their people. The apprehension of most of them is probably the suspicion that the bills favour Nigeria’s economic capital Lagos and the Rivers State in the oil-producing Niger delta, where most of the offices of local and foreign companies are located. The governors’ opposition appears to be conditional because they have since called on lawmakers from the region to reject the bills and ensure they were not passed into law until the controversial clauses were amended. But why will the controversial clauses not be amended?

Are the leaders sincere or are they like ordinary people misled by certain parochial interests? The question becomes relevant as other people have said the views of the governors are false. Bamidele Opeyemi, leader of the senate says “credible data have shown, for instance, that the new model recommends 6.17% to Kano compared to 0.89% currently due to it. It recommends 1.21% for Zamfara compared to 0.05%. Currently, Lagos gets 80.26%, but the new model only recommends 15.28%, representing an 81% decrease. Under the new model, also, Rivers’ share will decline from 7.74% to 4.6%, accounting for 41%. With these figures, the narrative around the new derivation model is utterly incorrect and unfounded.”

Whoever is fooling who, our politicians, be they apostles or opponents of President Tinubu, need to recognize that Nigeria does not belong to them alone and that false statements are tantamount to fake news which are harmful to national growth and integration. Our leaders should beware of centrifugal factors in heterogenous Nigeria that can at the slightest provocation stretch to breaking point.