Credibility, responsiveness will determine the success of Nigeria’s tax reforms

IN democratic governance, reform is not judged solely by intent or even by technical soundness. It is judged—ultimately and decisively—by process, credibility, and public trust. Where these are absent or weakened, even the most well-intentioned reforms risk collapse under the weight of suspicion, resistance, and legal uncertainty. In my essay “Nigeria’s Tax ID Debate: A Missed Chance for Simplicity,” published online on September 12, 2025, I warned that tax reform could fail without simplification and inter-agency coordination, especially given Nigeria’s existing identity rails—the National Identification Number (NIN) and Bank Verification Number (BVN)—and the risk of burdening citizens with duplicate identifiers. On December 23, 2025, FIRS clarified that NIN will serve as the Tax ID for individuals and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration numbers for companies, and that only taxable persons are required to hold Tax IDs. This is a welcome course correction toward simplification and reduced duplication. That assurance has eased widespread anxiety among Nigerians, home and abroad, who feared blanket enforcement. This course correction deserves commendation. It signals institutional responsiveness, reinforces the value of evidence-based critique, and confirms that Nigeria’s existing identity infrastructure can serve as the backbone of a modern tax system without imposing new bureaucratic burdens on citizens. Nevertheless, two distinct but related controversies remain unresolved, both striking at the core issues of trust and statecraft.

Why an indigenised approach to tax collection is necessary

The first controversy concerns the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS—set to transition to the Nigeria Revenue Service) and France’s Direction Générale des Finances Publiques (DGFiP). Though presented as “advisory-only” technical and digital cooperation, the MoU ignited public anxiety over sovereignty, data security, and an apparent dependence on foreign expertise—despite Nigeria’s demonstrable local and diaspora capacity in fintech, data analytics, and modern tax administration. Nigeria is not bereft of capacity. FIRS already works with indigenous platforms such as Flutterwave, Paystack, Interswitch, and NIBSS, which already operate secure, large-scale financial infrastructure. Nigerian professionals abroad are also designing and running modern tax systems, utilising AI-driven compliance tools, and applying advanced revenue analytics frameworks across the world.

What Nigeria needs, therefore, is not foreign advisory symbolism but a Nigerian-led, human-centred tax modernisation strategy—one that deploys data analytics and artificial intelligence to enable compliance, not criminalise citizens; to simplify obligations, not multiply fear; and to build trust, not deepen suspicion. International cooperation in tax administration is common globally. The concern is sequencing, optics, and a missed opportunity to first anchor reform in demonstrable Nigerian expertise. Crucially, Nigeria’s economic reality is fundamentally different from that of France or other advanced economies. Nigeria operates a predominantly informal economy, where a large proportion of citizens earn livelihoods outside formal payroll systems, structured corporate reporting, or stable digital records. Tax compliance in this context is not built on imported templates designed for highly formalised economies; it is built through gradual formalisation, incentives, simplicity, and trust. On matters as sensitive as taxation—where sovereignty, data, and civic trust intersect—Nigeria does not need foreign advisory services. What it needs is the courage to trust its own.

Why it is imperative to settle discrepancies in tax laws:

The second—and far more serious—controversy arose on December 17, 2025, when Hon. Abdulsammad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto) raised a point of privilege on the floor of the House of Representatives, alleging that the tax reform laws gazetted by the Executive differ materially from the versions debated, harmonised, and passed by the National Assembly. When a tax bill is debated, amended, and passed by the National Assembly, each clause reflects negotiation and compromise across interests and jurisdictions. That is why any allegation that a law—after passage and presidential assent—was altered at gazetting is profoundly disturbing. Such an allegation does not merely raise a technical drafting concern. It strikes at the sanctity of the legislative process itself. It suggests that agreements reached through constitutional deliberation may be unsettled administratively; that compromises forged across Nigeria’s fragile diversity may be undone quietly; and that the authority of the people’s representatives may be subordinated to opaque executive processes.

The Tinubu administration may be tempted to view taxation primarily as a fiscal instrument—a means to close revenue gaps, stabilise budgets, or satisfy macroeconomic imperatives. That view, while understandable, is incomplete. Taxation is not merely a tool of revenue extraction; it is a moral and civic contract between the state and its citizens. Where the law itself is contested, implementation becomes perilous. Proceeding amid unresolved discrepancies invites litigation, administrative confusion, investor uncertainty, and public non-compliance. In a federation already strained by questions of equity, representation, and trust, such outcomes would be profoundly destabilising. Pausing implementation under these circumstances is not obstruction. It is not sabotage. It is prudence—constitutional, political, and administrative.

The risk of credibility deficits: The Tinubu administration came to office through an election that remains widely contested in public consciousness, regardless of judicial finality. That reality alone imposed a higher obligation: to govern with exceptional transparency, restraint, and consultation. Instead, Nigerians have witnessed a recurring pattern. Policies are announced, outrage follows, and only then does revision occur. The controversial presidential pardon list—initially defended as approved by the Council of State—was later amended after public outcry. So too were the suspension of the cybersecurity levy and other retreats following public pressure. Responsiveness to public feedback is not a weakness. However, repeated reversals expose a lack of institutional discipline.

Over time, they erode trust and condition the public to doubt new and patriotic initiatives.

A path forward: The recent Tax ID harmonisation announcement demonstrates that reform without rupture is possible when institutions prioritise clarity, coordination, and citizen experience. First, the tax laws and tax identification framework must be simplified. Complexity breeds evasion, not compliance. A unified, intelligible Tax ID—built on existing identity systems—will do more to broaden the tax net than any coercive enforcement. Second, data harmonisation across the Nigeria Revenue Service, NIMC, CBN, CAC, NIBSS, Customs, and Immigration must be built on clean, shared, privacy-protected architectures—an essential precondition for effective, human-centred analytics that improves compliance with minimal errors. Third, the Executive and National Assembly should publish a transparent, line-by-line reconciliation of the “as-passed” and “as-gazetted” texts. Fourth, this process should be time-bound. The first quarter of 2026 is sufficient to reconcile the law, align institutions, consult stakeholders, and pilot implementation without derailing fiscal planning.

Government should also commission an independent legal audit and require post-implementation review.

Conclusion

The Tinubu administration still has a choice. It can treat criticism as hostility and press ahead, gambling that authority will substitute for legitimacy. Or it can recognise that true strength in governance lies not in speed, but in trust.

Nigeria does not lack expertise. It does not lack talent. It does not lack ideas. What it risks lacking—unless corrected—is confidence in the fairness and integrity of its institutions. Tax reform done right can strengthen the federation. Done wrong, it will deepen division.

Global experience is instructive: Estonia digitised only after harmonising identity and inter-agency data; India paused and simplified when the rollout created confusion; and South Africa’s approach to a large informal economy has emphasised gradual, incentive-driven compliance.

Nigeria’s challenge is not uniqueness; it is choice. FIRS’s recent course correction shows reform can advance through listening and clarity. Credibility is earned by responsiveness—and sustained by transparency. The question is whether that becomes the norm.

•Dr. Salako is a multidisciplinary scientist and consultant based in Texas, USA.

READ ALSO: FG’s tax reforms ’ll boost IGR, strengthen subnational economies — Adedeji