New Tax Law: Between False Claims and Blatant Reality
‎
By Zekeri Idakwo Laruba
‎
‎There is an old saying that when someone has already decided to dislike a meal, they will find fault with its smell, taste, or even the plate it is served on. These timeless reflections speak to a familiar human tendency: once a narrative is fixed in the mind, facts often struggle to compete with prejudice.
‎
‎In the ongoing debate around the new tax laws, this pattern is increasingly evident, as a wave of false or exaggerated claims, half-truths, and outright misinformation continues to shape public perception, often drowning out the substance and intent of the reforms themselves.
‎
‎The reality is simple: much of what has been presented as “alterations,” “fake gazettes,” or “secret tax increases” lacks credible proof and, in many cases, has been openly debunked by lawmakers, tax administrators, and policy reform leaders.
‎
‎At the centre of the controversy is the claim that the tax laws signed into law in 2025 were secretly altered after legislative passage. However, senior officials across the policy and legislative chain have consistently pushed back against these allegations, stressing due process and documentary transparency.
‎
‎The Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), Dr. Zacch Adedeji, has made it clear that there cannot be multiple versions of the law in force. According to him, the only valid legal framework is the one transmitted by the National Assembly and signed by the President. This aligns with constitutional legislative practice, a law exists as passed and assented to, not based on speculation or circulating drafts.
‎
‎Beyond legal clarity, Adedeji also clarified timeline confusion. While the tax reform laws became law upon presidential assent in June 2025, implementation timelines were structured to allow adjustment by taxpayers and institutions. The staged rollout, with major operational rates beginning January 2026, followed global best practice to prevent economic shock and compliance disruption.
‎
‎Available public reporting supports this position. Government authorities have repeatedly insisted that there has been no change to the version signed into law, even amid public controversy about gazetted copies.
‎
‎Similarly, policy reform leadership has dismissed viral claims of document manipulation. Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, has stated that widely circulated “alteration lists” and unofficial documents are fake or misrepresented drafts, warning that misinformation is being used to create fear about reforms designed to reduce tax burden on workers and small businesses.
‎
‎Indeed, the broader policy direction of the reform is not punitive. The tax overhaul signed in 2025 was designed to modernise tax administration, improve revenue efficiency, and create a more investment-friendly business climate.
‎
‎The real danger is not the law itself, it is the speed at which misinformation spreads. False claims often emerge in technical policy spaces because tax laws are complex, filled with legal language, and difficult for the average citizen to interpret. That creates fertile ground for politically motivated narratives and economic fear-mongering.
‎
‎In the case of the new tax law, some viral claims appeared before investigative committees even met, raising serious questions about the credibility of such narratives. Policy experts warn that when citizens are mobilised against reforms based on falsehoods, the country risks delaying reforms meant to fix long-standing structural problems in the tax system.
‎
‎And Nigeria’s tax system has long needed reform. For decades, the structure has been criticised for over-taxing compliant workers while allowing widespread evasion, multiple taxation layers, and administrative inefficiencies. Reform, therefore, is not just about revenue, it is about fairness, transparency, and long-term economic stability.
‎
‎One important point often ignored in public debate is the difference between legislative passage, gazetting, and implementation.
‎
‎Gazetting provides official public notice and record of a law but is not, by itself, what makes a law valid. The authority lies in legislative passage and presidential assent. This distinction matters because it separates administrative documentation issues from actual legislative legitimacy.
‎
‎Even where concerns about documentation arise, constitutional mechanisms, such as re-gazetting, exist to resolve discrepancies without invalidating the law itself.
‎
‎Tax reform is never popular anywhere in the world, but delaying reform comes at a real and measurable cost. Postponing modern tax changes often means continued multiple taxation for businesses, a heavier compliance burden on small and medium-scale enterprises, hidden indirect tax pressures on essential needs such as food, healthcare, and education, and reduced fiscal space for government to invest adequately in infrastructure, social services, and long-term economic development.
‎
‎Rejecting reform without evidence risks preserving a broken system simply because it is familiar.
‎
‎Nigeria’s tax reform debate is a test of institutional trust. Citizens deserve transparency. Government must continue to communicate clearly. Legislators must continue oversight. But public discourse must also move beyond viral documents and anonymous claims toward evidence-based engagement.
‎
‎Manipulation may travel fast. But sustainable policy must stand on facts. The new tax laws are not perfect, no reform ever is. But the evidence available so far does not support claims of secret alterations, multiple laws, or hidden tax expansion beyond what was debated and passed through constitutional process.
‎
‎In the end, the real question is not whether misinformation exists, it clearly does. The real question is whether Nigeria will allow misinformation to define its economic future.
‎
‎Because when policy is driven by fear instead of facts, it is always the ordinary citizen that pays the highest price.
‎