deshola As the calendar turned to 2026, the Federal Government of Nigeria announced that its new tax laws would take effect on January 1 as planned, even amid mounting controversy and calls for a delay from opposition parties and civil society. President Bola Tinubu described the reforms as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to streamline the country’s fiscal framework and strengthen the social contract.
The confrontation over the Tax Reform Act, however, exposed a deeper fault line in governance: the erosion of public trust in how major policy changes are communicated and implemented. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and other critics contend that discrepancies between the harmonised version of the tax bill passed by the National Assembly and the version gazetted into law raised legitimate legal and procedural questions. They urged a suspension of the January 1 commencement until the issues were transparently resolved.
Tinubu’s administration pushed back, asserting that “no substantial issue” warranted delaying implementation and pledging to work with the National Assembly to address any problems that surface in the reform’s rollout.
In retrospect, this article highlights several avoidable missteps and offers a blueprint for how the government could have navigated the process more effectively.
At the heart of the unrest was a deficit of procedural transparency. Major reforms, especially ones with far-reaching implications for businesses and households, depend not only on legal correctness but also on public confidence in the integrity of the process. Parliament and the executive could have forestalled much of the backlash by publishing and thoroughly reconciling the harmonised bill and the gazetted version well before the law was enacted. Early, open disclosure of any amendments or technical corrections accompanied by explanatory notes would have reduced the space for speculation and mistrust.
This is not merely a matter of optics. Transparent legislative drafting and communication frameworks are essential to democratic legitimacy. In countries with robust tax regimes, including many advanced economies, governments routinely engage stakeholders months ahead of implementation, holding public consultations, publishing impact assessments, and ensuring that copies of the final text are widely accessible. Nigeria’s experience suggests a gap in that practice one that can be closed by institutionalising inclusive policy design and clearer legislative communication channels.
Second, the government’s public engagement strategy felt reactive rather than proactive. Opposition voices and business groups reported learning of contentious provisions late in the process, leading to suspicions that technical discrepancies were won at the negotiating table rather than surfaced in open debate. A more participatory approach where civil society, employer associations, labour unions and academic experts are brought into structured dialogues ahead of final approval could have defused tensions and enriched the reform with practical insights.
The Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for example, has urged a transparent implementation of the Tax Reform Act to boost growth, noting that clarity and simplicity in compliance will be essential to reducing burdens on enterprises and widening the tax base. Governments that succeed in sweeping tax reforms often build broad consensus before enactment, not after controversy erupts.
Third, timing matters. Rolling out major fiscal changes at the exact cusp of a new year a period already saturated with budget planning, corporate closures and consumer spending shifts compounded anxiety among businesses and households. A phased implementation schedule, with pre-implementation pilot phases or delay mechanisms contingent on clarity around contested sections of the law, could have brought structure to what otherwise appeared like an abrupt policy shift.
Finally, institutionalising robust legal review processes would reduce the room for procedural disputes. Civil liberties organisations and legal experts have in other contexts pushed for more independent legislative scrutiny and rapid response dispute resolution, tools that can help nip legally ambiguous moments in the bud. Nigeria’s Parliament could consider establishing or empowering legislative legal services to certify that harmonised and enshrined versions of a bill are identical and publicly vouch for that certification before a law takes effect.
These are not simple technical adjustments. They are governance reforms that strengthen credibility, making it easier for citizens to see major policy changes as fair and reasoned rather than rushed or covert.
The Federal Government’s macroeconomic outlook including projected external reserves of $51.04 billion, GDP growth of 4.49 per cent and a moderation of inflation to an average of 12.94 per cent in 2026 suggests Nigeria’s economy could be on a firmer footing as the year begins. But fiscal stability is only sustainable if the mechanisms by which that stability is pursued command broad public trust.
Better handling of the Tax Reform Act could have reinforced that trust. Transparent drafting, proactive stakeholder engagement, timing calibration and stronger legislative review would not only have defused political opposition, they would have signalled a government confident in its own priorities and committed to democratic process as a foundation for economic reform.
