Are Nigeria’s New Tax Laws Unconstitutional? Why a Lawyer Is Suing the Federal Government Over Multiple Budgets, Fiscal Transparency, and the 2026 Tax Reforms
Is Nigeria running its finances in violation of its own laws—and could the country’s new tax regime be declared unconstitutional? These are the questions now before the Federal High Court in Lagos following a landmark lawsuit filed by human rights lawyer, Mr. Tilewa Oyefeso.
Oyefeso has dragged the Federal Government, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the National Assembly, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court, challenging what he describes as Nigeria’s “opaque and undisciplined fiscal regime.” At the heart of the case is the government’s practice of operating multiple federal budgets simultaneously and introducing new tax laws that he claims contradict both the Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) 2007.
According to the suit, the Federal Government has extended capital components of the 2024 Appropriation Act into 2025 and 2026 while the 2025 budget is already in force—effectively running overlapping budgets. Oyefeso is asking the court to determine whether this practice complies with Nigeria’s Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the unified annual budgeting system mandated by fiscal law.
Why does this matter? The lawyer argues that overlapping budgets, supplementary appropriations, and extended capital projects undermine fiscal transparency, distort expenditure projections, and weaken the macroeconomic discipline the Fiscal Responsibility Act was designed to protect. He also accuses the government of failing to publish quarterly budget implementation reports within the legally required 30-day period—an omission he says makes it impossible for citizens to track public spending or hold authorities accountable.
But the lawsuit goes beyond budgets. Oyefeso is also challenging four major tax laws scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2026: the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act 2025, and the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025.
He contends that the new tax framework prioritises aggressive revenue generation without first ensuring compliance with constitutional limits on borrowing, deficit thresholds, fiscal accountability, and transparency. Citing Section 16 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines Nigeria’s economic objectives, Oyefeso argues that fiscal and tax policies must promote social justice, equitable wealth distribution, macroeconomic stability, and the welfare of citizens—not merely expand government revenue.
One of his key claims is that the reforms ignore the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s requirement that fiscal deficits should not exceed three per cent of GDP unless expressly approved by the National Assembly. By allegedly sidestepping these safeguards, he says, the new tax laws form part of a broader unconstitutional fiscal structure.
Among the reliefs sought, Oyefeso is asking the court to declare the four tax laws unconstitutional, null, and void. He also wants an order of mandamus compelling the National Assembly to amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act to strengthen transparency, fiscal discipline, and prudent resource management. In addition, he seeks a perpetual injunction to halt the implementation of the new tax laws pending such amendments.
What could this mean for Nigeria’s economy and governance? If the court upholds his arguments, the ruling could upend Nigeria’s 2026 tax framework, force reforms to budgetary practices, and redefine how fiscal responsibility is enforced under the Constitution.
For now, the defendants have 30 days to respond, and the case is yet to be assigned to a judge. But the questions raised are already resonating nationwide: Is Nigeria violating its own fiscal laws? Are the new tax reforms legally sound? And will the courts finally impose transparency on how public funds are budgeted, spent, and taxed?
Is Nigeria running its finances in violation of its own laws—and could the country’s new tax regime be declared unconstitutional? These are the questions now before the Federal High Court in Lagos following a landmark lawsuit filed by human rights lawyer, Mr. Tilewa Oyefeso.
Oyefeso has dragged the Federal Government, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the National Assembly, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court, challenging what he describes as Nigeria’s “opaque and undisciplined fiscal regime.” At the heart of the case is the government’s practice of operating multiple federal budgets simultaneously and introducing new tax laws that he claims contradict both the Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) 2007.
According to the suit, the Federal Government has extended capital components of the 2024 Appropriation Act into 2025 and 2026 while the 2025 budget is already in force—effectively running overlapping budgets. Oyefeso is asking the court to determine whether this practice complies with Nigeria’s Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the unified annual budgeting system mandated by fiscal law.
Why does this matter? The lawyer argues that overlapping budgets, supplementary appropriations, and extended capital projects undermine fiscal transparency, distort expenditure projections, and weaken the macroeconomic discipline the Fiscal Responsibility Act was designed to protect. He also accuses the government of failing to publish quarterly budget implementation reports within the legally required 30-day period—an omission he says makes it impossible for citizens to track public spending or hold authorities accountable.
But the lawsuit goes beyond budgets. Oyefeso is also challenging four major tax laws scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2026: the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act 2025, and the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025.
He contends that the new tax framework prioritises aggressive revenue generation without first ensuring compliance with constitutional limits on borrowing, deficit thresholds, fiscal accountability, and transparency. Citing Section 16 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines Nigeria’s economic objectives, Oyefeso argues that fiscal and tax policies must promote social justice, equitable wealth distribution, macroeconomic stability, and the welfare of citizens—not merely expand government revenue.
One of his key claims is that the reforms ignore the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s requirement that fiscal deficits should not exceed three per cent of GDP unless expressly approved by the National Assembly. By allegedly sidestepping these safeguards, he says, the new tax laws form part of a broader unconstitutional fiscal structure.
Among the reliefs sought, Oyefeso is asking the court to declare the four tax laws unconstitutional, null, and void. He also wants an order of mandamus compelling the National Assembly to amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act to strengthen transparency, fiscal discipline, and prudent resource management. In addition, he seeks a perpetual injunction to halt the implementation of the new tax laws pending such amendments.
What could this mean for Nigeria’s economy and governance? If the court upholds his arguments, the ruling could upend Nigeria’s 2026 tax framework, force reforms to budgetary practices, and redefine how fiscal responsibility is enforced under the Constitution.
For now, the defendants have 30 days to respond, and the case is yet to be assigned to a judge. But the questions raised are already resonating nationwide: Is Nigeria violating its own fiscal laws? Are the new tax reforms legally sound? And will the courts finally impose transparency on how public funds are budgeted, spent, and taxed?
Are Nigeria’s New Tax Laws Unconstitutional? Why a Lawyer Is Suing the Federal Government Over Multiple Budgets, Fiscal Transparency, and the 2026 Tax Reforms
Is Nigeria running its finances in violation of its own laws—and could the country’s new tax regime be declared unconstitutional? These are the questions now before the Federal High Court in Lagos following a landmark lawsuit filed by human rights lawyer, Mr. Tilewa Oyefeso.
Oyefeso has dragged the Federal Government, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the National Assembly, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court, challenging what he describes as Nigeria’s “opaque and undisciplined fiscal regime.” At the heart of the case is the government’s practice of operating multiple federal budgets simultaneously and introducing new tax laws that he claims contradict both the Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) 2007.
According to the suit, the Federal Government has extended capital components of the 2024 Appropriation Act into 2025 and 2026 while the 2025 budget is already in force—effectively running overlapping budgets. Oyefeso is asking the court to determine whether this practice complies with Nigeria’s Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the unified annual budgeting system mandated by fiscal law.
Why does this matter? The lawyer argues that overlapping budgets, supplementary appropriations, and extended capital projects undermine fiscal transparency, distort expenditure projections, and weaken the macroeconomic discipline the Fiscal Responsibility Act was designed to protect. He also accuses the government of failing to publish quarterly budget implementation reports within the legally required 30-day period—an omission he says makes it impossible for citizens to track public spending or hold authorities accountable.
But the lawsuit goes beyond budgets. Oyefeso is also challenging four major tax laws scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2026: the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act 2025, and the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025.
He contends that the new tax framework prioritises aggressive revenue generation without first ensuring compliance with constitutional limits on borrowing, deficit thresholds, fiscal accountability, and transparency. Citing Section 16 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines Nigeria’s economic objectives, Oyefeso argues that fiscal and tax policies must promote social justice, equitable wealth distribution, macroeconomic stability, and the welfare of citizens—not merely expand government revenue.
One of his key claims is that the reforms ignore the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s requirement that fiscal deficits should not exceed three per cent of GDP unless expressly approved by the National Assembly. By allegedly sidestepping these safeguards, he says, the new tax laws form part of a broader unconstitutional fiscal structure.
Among the reliefs sought, Oyefeso is asking the court to declare the four tax laws unconstitutional, null, and void. He also wants an order of mandamus compelling the National Assembly to amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act to strengthen transparency, fiscal discipline, and prudent resource management. In addition, he seeks a perpetual injunction to halt the implementation of the new tax laws pending such amendments.
What could this mean for Nigeria’s economy and governance? If the court upholds his arguments, the ruling could upend Nigeria’s 2026 tax framework, force reforms to budgetary practices, and redefine how fiscal responsibility is enforced under the Constitution.
For now, the defendants have 30 days to respond, and the case is yet to be assigned to a judge. But the questions raised are already resonating nationwide: Is Nigeria violating its own fiscal laws? Are the new tax reforms legally sound? And will the courts finally impose transparency on how public funds are budgeted, spent, and taxed?
0 Comments
·0 Shares
·107 Views
