President Bola Tinubu, on Tuesday, forwarded the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) and the fiscal strategy paper (FSP) to the national assembly for consideration and approval.

Tinubu is also seeking the approval of the senate and house of representatives for a fresh $2.2 billion.

The president’s request was contained in letters read on the floor of the house of representatives and senate on Tuesday.

More to follow…

[TheCable]

Root cause of Nigeria’s problem is, unarguably, inappropriate system of government.  Bad governance, poor economy, insecurity and corruption are just offshoots.  It is absurd to pool people characterized by ethnic nationalism with diverse regional allegiance, culture, interest and vision together under a central government, and expect to make progress.  Nigeria’s political structure is incompatible with its plural composition. 

As a multiethnic society, Nigeria has been struggling under a political framework that is unsuitable, anomalous, and inimical to its future, resulting in discordant policies and delivery setbacks.  And until the political structure veiled in unitary configuration is discarded and replaced with federalism or, in the alternative, confederation, Nigeria risks collapse.  

Nigeria is a hypothesis that has been undergoing experiment, which can now be confirmed to be unworkable due to improper political system.  After careful evaluation of its complex diversity, nothing suggestive that the country can ever overcome its challenges with the current system.  It is like using palm oil as substitute for aviation fuel to power an aircraft, and expect it to fly.  The country is on a wrong trajectory, and incapable of producing any form of prospects, except there is a change of system.  

The 1999 Nigerian Constitution is in structure, content, spirit and intent, a unitary constitution when viewed against the backdrop of the Exclusive list which has 67 items and the Concurrent list with 13 items, an indication of strong centre, weak states.  The constitution is incompetent to resolve Nigeria’s unending woes.  It is antithetical to the essence of the country’s amalgamation, where hitherto different independent nations, now have their destinies determined and centrally regulated against their vision and values.  

What Nigeria needs is a completely new Constitution with features of federalism, characterized by decentralization or devolution of powers to the federating units or regions, with authority over control of natural resources in their domains, together with liberty to pursue their dreams and aspirations in line with their peculiar potentials, values and needs.  This will enable them develop at their paces independently without any statutory interference from the centre.  

Otherwise, the country can be restructured into a confederal system where the regions or federating nationalities should have obligation to wholly manage their affairs, except for responsibilities relating strictly to army, foreign affairs, currency, and perhaps, internal trade, which should be ceded to the central government to administer with full power and authority.  These options are the only way Nigeria can be saved from a looming catastrophe, as elasticity of endurance is waning fast.

Self-determination by agitators of Biafra Republic, Oduduwa Republic/Yoruba Nation, Niger-Delta Republic, Arewa Republic, and even the recent display and hoisting of Russian flags during the “End-Bad Governance Nationwide Protest” that was held from August 1 -10, 2024 in northern parts of the country, are evidence of widespread discontent arising from the current system of government.  

Besides, as a consequence of the unitary system, there is a growing feeling of ethnic and regional subjugation among ethnic nationalities, resulting in system disloyalty.  Policies enunciated by government designed to reposition the economy, reform the political system, eradicate profligacies, and even eliminate terrorists’ organisations in the country are covertly frustrated with complicities of persons from aggrieved regions or sections.  

Put differently, differences in values, culture, heritage, tradition, history, language, geography and belief system, have led to clash of visions, interests, goals and priorities among federating units or regions, which have further thrown up centrifugal forces that have held the country hostage.  This is a complex inherent challenge and source of division in the country.  

This portends danger, and a signal of emerging trouble, particularly within the context of young generation of persons in the various ethnic nationalities whose opportunities, talents and creativity are repressed by quota system and intrinsic flaws in the unitary structure.  Running a country with people working clandestinely at cross-purposes to advance ethnic and regional agenda, offers no hope of achieving any deliverables beyond cosmetic progress.  

Also, the unitary system breeds economic injustice among federating states or regions.  By allowing some states or individuals to freely harness, harvest and utilise mineral resources and cash crops, including groundnuts, cocoa, rubber, palm oil and solid minerals n their domains, while depriving other regions like Niger Delta of resources in their territories, is a major flaw in the system.  It is not only unjust; it is a trigger for insurrection.

Specifically, to single out the oil and gas resources in the Niger Delta Region for expropriation through obnoxious Petroleum Act of 1966 which now forms part of Section 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution, is tantamount to robbing Niger Delta people to service other regions.  Government has used the law to legalise ownership, with proceeds shared among federating units or states, implicitly depriving the Niger Delta people of control over their resources. 

Regrettably, the people of the region alone suffer from hazardous effect of oil exploration.  The ecosystem of the region has been destroyed, as agricultural and fishery activities are no longer generative.  This is further compounded by depletion of their lands which have been constantly acquired by government and allocated as oil blocks to individuals and organisations.

Unitary system in a plural society like Nigeria encourages high-stakes investments in politics induced by unhealthy ethnic and regional competition among politicians in an effort to grab power at the centre or federal level, and in turn, use it to control and distribute resources and appointments for ethnic and regional advantage.  Such unwholesome quest for power has no place in federalism, where power is decentralized to federating units.  

Under the unitary system, states and local governments are appendages and dependants of the federal government.  They rely on monthly revenue allocation from federal government for survival, which encourages laziness and docility with weak creative capacities for revenue generation.  This promotes subservient corporatism and inefficiency.

Besides, system contradictions inherent in the unitary system put a wide gap between the people and the central government, and this makes it difficult to hold leaders at the federal level accountable, particularly over breach in governance ethics.  But a regionalized or decentralized system will bring people closer to power, and leaders can be held accountable for their actions and inactions.  

Nigeria’s stunted growth as reflected in the country’s continued decline in general indices, including misery index, is direct consequence of the centralized system, which has caged destinies, and by extension, capacities of the federating nations to develop independently. Therefore, political leaders must be courageous enough to think beyond personal interests and deep-rooted prejudices to support a system that will give the federating units freedom to drive and manage their aspirations.  

After all, a pluralistic country like India with diverse cultural differences are able to co-exist in peace because of suitable system of government - Cooperative Federalism.  Besides, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland that make up the United Kingdom, separately pursue their dreams and even compete for laurels at Olympics and World Cup, while maintaining their status as members of the United Kingdom.  Why can’t Nigeria be unbundled and recreated to make it work, so that federating regions can achieve their goals within the context of their distinct cultural aspirations.  

The current Nigeria’s system is a catalyst for division, unable to foster unity, a necessity required to drive the country in one direction.  The four attributes of Unity, Faith, Peace, and Progress as contained in the country’s coat of arms, have failed to inspire confidence and loyalty, as they barely exist in the minds of Nigerians.  

In the absence of impaired vision, those opposed to change in status quo (unitary system) are doing so because of entrenched interests arising from benefits their regions or ethnic groups derive from the subsisting configuration.  Nigeria’s political structure as encapsulated in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot deliver on the country’s dream of prosperity, other than unending insecurity, ethnic rivalry, strife, nepotism, poverty, stunted development and corruption, which sadly, have become part of Nigeria’s trade mark and identity.  

Therefore, until the country is unbundled and reconstructed, using a new constitution that devolves powers to regions, which allows them to run independently within the context of their separate cultural and economic aspirations, Nigeria risks dismemberment.  

Dr. Mike Owhoko, Lagos-based public policy analyst, author, and journalist, can be reached at www.mikeowhoko.com, and followed on X {formerly Twitter} @michaelowhoko.

The recent restructuring of President Ahmed Tinubu’s media and communications team introduces an unconventional approach. It dispenses with the traditional singular spokesperson for the Presidency and instead delegates this role to a team of three special advisers. While the stated objective is to enhance efficiency and ensure consistent messaging, this strategy raises critical questions about its practicality and potential pitfalls.

The primary risk of a decentralised communication model is the lack of a unified voice. Effective public communication requires coherence and clarity, especially at the presidential level. Multiple spokespersons increase the likelihood of conflicting narratives, especially on sensitive national issues. Such discrepancies could undermine public trust and create confusion about the administration’s position on critical matters.

The re-designated roles— public communications, policy communication, and information and strategy—appear to overlap, with no clear demarcation of responsibilities. Without well-defined boundaries, turf wars or duplication of efforts could emerge, hampering the efficiency this restructuring seeks to achieve.

A singular spokesperson serves as a recognisable point of contact for the media, fostering relationships built on trust and familiarity. The Presidency risks diluting this dynamic by distributing this responsibility among three officials. Journalists and media houses may struggle with whom to approach for clarity or official statements, potentially slowing the news cycle and reducing responsiveness.
Effective governance requires a delicate balance between communicating policies and managing public perception. While this model may excel in conveying technical aspects of policies through different channels, it could falter in responding swiftly to public backlash or misinformation. The absence of a singular, authoritative voice in moments of crisis could exacerbate negative sentiments.

In modern governance, the role of a singular presidential spokesperson extends beyond information dissemination. It involves crafting a consistent narrative, shaping public discourse, and serving as a symbolic extension of the President. The absence of such a figure might hinder efforts to build a relatable and personable government image.

To mitigate these challenges, the Presidency could delineate the roles and responsibilities of each special adviser to prevent overlap and establish a formal coordination mechanism among the advisers to ensure consistency. One of the three advisers should be designated as the “lead spokesperson” for specific high-stakes or crises. Mr. Bayo Onanuga seems to be playing this role.
While the “no single individual spokesperson” model is innovative, its effectiveness will depend on the character of the advisers, disciplined execution and strategic coordination. Without these, it risks becoming a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

The recent statements by Kole Omololu, a chieftain of Afenifere, labeling former President Olusegun Obasanjo as a leader who mismanaged his presidency, are not only inaccurate but also reflect a glaring case of a prophet not recognized by his own people and a lack of appreciation for the achievements of one of Nigeria’s most impactful leaders. Omololu’s sweeping criticism, while glowing over President Tinubu’s recent economic moves, is a prime example of the proverbial saying that a prophet is never honored in his own land.

Before delving into Omololu’s critiques, it is crucial to recognize Obasanjo’s transformative leadership during his time as president from 1999 to 2007. While no administration is devoid of flaws, Obasanjo’s tenure was marked by significant strides that set Nigeria on a course toward economic recovery and democratic consolidation. Under his watch, Nigeria saw substantial debt relief, economic reforms, and efforts to stabilize a post-military democratic era.

The achievements of the Obasanjo administration are often overshadowed by selective criticism, usually from quarters unwilling to acknowledge the broader impact of his policies. The dismissal of Obasanjo’s legacy as one of failure is, therefore, not only unfair but reveals a narrow, ethnocentric perspective that disregards the complex realities of nation-building in a post-military Nigeria.

Could it be that Omololu’s harsh critique of Obasanjo is colored by their shared Yoruba ethnicity, making it difficult for him to objectively assess the former president’s accomplishments? It’s not unusual for people to be more critical of those who hail from their own ethnic or regional background, perhaps holding them to higher, and sometimes unrealistic, and standards. In this case, Omololu’s statements might be seen as a classic case of failing to recognize the worth of a leader who is “too close to home.”

The biblical adage that “a prophet is not recognized in his own country” rings true here. Despite Obasanjo’s enduring influence and global recognition, his achievements are often downplayed by those who should know better, perhaps because they are too familiar with his perceived flaws. This tendency to criticize one’s own kin, while embracing outsiders, is one of the complexities of Nigeria’s political landscape, where “see finish” can sometimes cloud objective judgment.

Omololu’s comparison of Tinubu’songoing brief tenure with Obasanjo’s eight-year presidency appears premature, especially when one considers the long-term impacts of governance. It is no secret that economic reforms like the removal of fuel subsidies and forex rate unification, championed by Tinubu, are necessary steps. However, they have come at a significant cost to the already impoverished Nigerian populace, leading to widespread suffering. It is one thing to praise bold economic decisions, but it is quite another to assess their real impact on the lives of ordinary Nigerians.

Omololu highlights the economic indicators under Tinubu, such as improvements in the Nigerian Stock Exchange and trade surplus records. Yet, these metrics do not tell the whole story. Obasanjo’s era was about laying the foundation for macroeconomic stability, debt relief, and creating a new image for Nigeria on the global stage. By contrast, Tinubu’s reforms have so far brought more pain than relief to the average Nigerian struggling with inflation and unemployment.

Omololu attempts to score points by comparing corruption ratings under Obasanjo and Tinubu. He cites Transparency International’s recent report, suggesting that Nigeria’s corruption perception has improved under Tinubu. However, reducing the complexities of corruption to mere rankings on global indices does a disservice to the broader, systemic issues Nigeria faces. Obasanjo, for all his faults, did take decisive steps to tackle corruption, including establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), both of which remain central to Nigeria’s anti-corruption fight today.

Moreover, Omololu’s reference to the public fallout between Obasanjo and his deputy, AtikuAbubakar, as evidence of Obasanjo’s inability to manage his presidency is a shallow argument. Leadership, especially in a diverse nation like Nigeria, involves managing difficult personalities and interests. It is this very openness in Nigerian politics, where internal disagreements are aired in public,that fosters a democratic spirit, even if it sometimes appears chaotic.

Obasanjo’s willingness to critique the current state of affairs, including under President Tinubu, is not a reflection of bitterness or failed leadership but of his commitment to Nigeria’s progress. It takes courage and experience to speak out against the prevailing winds, especially when those winds blow from one’s own ethnic enclave.

Kole Omololu’s assertion that Obasanjo has no moral standing to criticize Tinubu is not only misplaced but also suggests a lack of historical understanding. Leaders like Obasanjo, who have seen Nigeria through its tumultuous journey, should not be silenced for the sake of political expediency. The real question is not whether Obasanjo managed his presidency perfectly but whether his criticisms, however uncomfortable, hold merit in addressing Nigeria’s current trajectory.

In the final analysis, it is crucial to remember that governance is a marathon, not a sprint. Omololu may be quick to shower praises on Tinubu’s “bold reforms,” but only time will tell if these policies truly benefit Nigeria or simply provide short-term gains with long-term consequences. Meanwhile, Obasanjo’s criticisms should not be dismissed as “habitual attention-seeking” but rather seen as part of a necessary dialogue to hold leaders accountable.

Indeed, a prophet is often not recognized by his own people. But history has a way of vindicating those who speak truth to power, even when their words are uncomfortable. Omololu and others may be eager to sideline Obasanjo, but the enduring legacy of Nigeria’s past leaders should not be so easily erased from the national consciousness.

The United States’ President Joe Biden has announced a $4 billion commitment to the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank unit that provides low-interest loans and grants to the world’s poorest nations.

The pledge was made during a closed-door meeting with other Group of 20 (G20) leaders in Rio de Janeiro on Monday, according to a senior administration official.

The three-year commitment aims to strengthen the IDA’s resources amid uncertainty surrounding the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

IDA, which relies on periodic replenishments of donor funds, plays a critical role in financing development projects for approximately 75 of the world’s poorest countries.

However, the disbursement of the pledged funds will require Congressional approval—a process that may face delays until after Trump assumes office in January.

A shift in U.S. development policy? 

During his first administration, Trump and his advisers advocated for more unilateral approaches to development financing, including the establishment of the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

• Despite this, the U.S. contributed $3 billion to the IDA’s fund replenishment in 2019.
• Project 2025, a governance blueprint developed by Trump’s former advisers, had recommended the U.S. withdraw from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
• However, Trump and his campaign distanced themselves from this proposal during the election.

World Bank’s ambitious goals 

• World Bank President Ajay Banga recently highlighted the institution’s efforts to mobilize more than $100 billion in funding for the poorest nations, surpassing the record $93 billion raised during the last donor round in 2021.
• The IDA’s funding supports essential projects in health, education, infrastructure, and economic development, aiming to uplift some of the most vulnerable communities worldwide.
• Biden’s pledge indicates a continued commitment to multilateral development efforts and global poverty alleviation.
• It also signals the administration’s intention to maintain U.S. leadership in international financial institutions, despite potential shifts in policy under the next administration.

IDA’s impacts in Nigeria 

The IDA has supported many projects in Nigeria, including the Nigeria Electrification Project (NEP), which uses IDA credits to provide reliable electricity to households, businesses, universities, and hospitals through solar systems.

• Another project is the North Core/Dorsale Nord Regional Power Inter-connector, which connects Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, and Niger with high-voltage transmission lines to make electricity more reliable and affordable.
• The $700 million Nigeria Agro-Climatic Resilience in Semi-Arid Landscapes (ACReSAL) Project is also funded by the IDA to increase the use of sustainable landscape management practices in northern Nigeria.
• Similarly, the ongoing Nigeria Digital Identification for Development (ID4D) project, which aims to give every Nigerian a digital identity, is being funded by IDA and other institutions.

Under the financing plan for the project, which was approved by the World Bank unit in 2020, AFD is to release $100 million and the EIB is to fund it with $215, while the IDA is to add $115 million.

[Nairametrics]

Victor Boniface and Kelechi Iheanacho started for the Super Eagles in their final 2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification match against Rwanda at the Godswill Akpabio International Stadium on Monday but weren’t as impressive as expected.

Boniface played for 89 minutes, while Iheanacho’s struggle culminated in his substitution at halftime.

Addressing Iheanacho’s performance, Eguavoen acknowledged his importance to the national team, saying: “Kelechi Iheanacho is an asset to the national team; he needs some encouragement.”

Eguavoen emphasized his previous discussions with Iheanacho, reassuring him that he would have the opportunity to start and play for at least 45 minutes to regain his confidence.

Turning his attention to Boniface, the coach expressed a sense of urgency regarding the forward’s development, noting: “I have spoken with Boniface several times; I have done enough. He is important to this team.”

Recall that the Super Eagles, who have qualified for the 2025 AFCON after drawing 1-1 with Benin Republic on Thursday, suffered an unexpected 2-1 defeat to Rwanda in their last game of the campaign.

The match began positively for Nigeria, with Samuel Chukwueze giving them the lead just before the hour mark. However, the Rwandan team, under the management of Thorsten Spitler, showcased resilience and came back to claim victory with goals from Jimmy Mutsinzi and Innocent Nshuti.

After the final whistle, Eguavoen expressed his disappointment with the team’s overall performance, saying: “It was below standard, and I feel very sad.”

He reflected on the game’s progression, stating, “This result was not what we planned for. We scored and were pushing for a second goal, but quite against the run of play, we conceded.”

Eguavoen added that he attempted to adapt the team’s tactics mid-game by altering the formation, but unfortunately, these changes did not yield the desired outcome.

[NaijaNews]

Rafael Nadal said he is unsure what role he will play at the Davis Cup this week, but he added he is at peace with his decision to retire from the sport and said any emotion will be kept in check until after the Davis Cup finishes.

Nadal, 38, was speaking on the eve of him taking part in his final competition in professional tennis as he lines up for Spain in the Davis Cup for its tie with the Netherlands. Spain captain David Ferrer would not be drawn on whether Nadal will play singles or doubles on Tuesday, but Nadal said he is ready to give his all for his country.

“If I’m on the court I hope to control my emotions. I’m not here to retire, I’m here to help the team win,” Nadal told a news conference.

“It’s my last week in a team competition and the most important thing is to help the team. Emotions will come at the end. Before and after I’ll be focused on what I have to do.”

It was a packed press room in Malaga on Monday for Spain’s team, as Nadal fielded questions on whether he had any regrets over retiring, and his emotions, as he prepared for one final swing.

He was sat on stage next to the other members of the Spanish team — including Carlos Alcaraz — but the attention was on Nadal, complete with his 22 Grand Slams and incredible legacy in the sport.

“It’s something that I have been thinking about for quite a long time, I wanted to have one more chance,” Nadal said.

“I have tried to work as hard as possible in the last month and a half. Just trying to do my best every single day. It’s difficult to hold the level on a constant basis when you’re not competing for a while. The improvement is there but we have a great team in Spain. The thing is all these players on the tour are having great seasons and it’s up to the captain to decide what’s best for the team.”

Nadal said he is not sure what emotions he will feel on Tuesday, if it is indeed his last match, with Spain potentially playing again in the semifinals on Friday and the final on Sunday if they progress that far. But Nadal said he leaves the sport content; he gave it his all.

“Everybody at the end of a long career, of course, at the end I will change things that I did, I will do things that I will change to try to be better and to try to avoid things, but at the end, I achieved the most important thing for me,” Nadal said.

 [Leadership]

Members of the House of Representatives from the northern part of the country have raised fresh concerns over the four tax reform bills currently under consideration in the National Assembly.

They spoke at an interactive session organised by the House of Representatives with the members of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms on Monday.

The bills, particularly the proposed amendment to the distribution of Value Added Tax (VAT) revenue, have sparked widespread debate.

The bills are: The Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, which is expected to provide the fiscal framework for taxation in the country; and the Tax Administration Bill, which will provide a clear and concise legal framework for all taxes in the country and reduce disputes.

The others are: the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Bill, which will repeal the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Act and establish the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill, which will create a tax tribunal and a tax ombudsman.

The National Economic Council (NEC) and state governors have urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withdraw the bills for further consultations.

Also, northern leaders, including traditional rulers and lawmakers, have expressed their opposition, saying the proposed reforms are skewed against the region.

Despite this, President Tinubu has maintained that the legislative process should proceed, emphasising that ongoing deliberations allow for inputs and amendments without the need to withdraw the bills.

During the session yesterday, lawmakers, including Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi (APC, Plateau), Rep. Ahmed Jaha Babawo (APC, Borno), Rep. Zainab Gimba (APC, Borno), and Rep. Zakariah Dauda Nyampah (PDP, Adamawa), expressed concerns about the bills’ potential impacts on the North.

They argued that the region’s economy, already weakened by insecurity and poor productivity, could suffer further under the proposed amendments.

But the presidential tax reform team allayed the fears, saying the current VAT distribution favours few states and is unfair to others. 

‘North’s economy plagued by insecurity’

The northern lawmakers raised concerns that the socio-economic vulnerabilities faced by states in the region, largely driven by insecurity, have not been adequately considered in the proposed tax reform bills.

The lawmakers called for a balanced approach to the tax reform process, one that considers the region’s security challenges and ensures fair treatment for all states.

Rep. Gagdi said insecurity has disrupted the previously vibrant economies of many northern states and questioned how conflict-displaced citizens in the North could benefit from VAT proceeds tied to consumption and other import-related taxes.

He noted that industries, factories, and other means of production in these areas have been severely impacted, with large portions of the productive population displaced or rendered less effective due to challenges such as Boko Haram insurgency and banditry.

Rep. Jaha said the timing of the proposed tax amendments is inappropriate given the current security situation in the North, which has significantly affected its economy.

He expressed reservations about the derivation-based revenue-sharing formula, which he said would unfairly disadvantage economically fragile states.

“There are regions, especially in the North, that are not economically viable due to security challenges. The proposed VAT allocation formula would treat these states unfairly,” Jaha said.

Rep. Gimba emphasised the plight of states like Borno, where insurgency has significantly hindered economic activities.

She called for a more equitable VAT-sharing formula that would account for the unique challenges faced by such states.

Similarly, Rep. Nyampah called for careful consideration of the controversial provisions in the reform bills that could adversely affect northern states, both individually and collectively.

We’ll prioritise constituents’ wishes – Senator Kawu Sumaila

The Senator representing Kano South, Abdurahman Kawu Sumaila, has assured that lawmakers, particularly those from the northern region, will align their decisions with the wishes of their constituents regarding the bills.

Speaking with Daily Trust on Monday, Senator Sumaila emphasised that the views of the people, as communicated through regional leaders, would guide their actions.

“We are studying the bill as usual and liaising with our constituents and relevant stakeholders to understand their feelings and views. It is the peoples’ views and will that will prevail in the end. This is what will happen,” he said.

When asked about his stance on the position advanced by northern governors and traditional leaders, Senator Sumaila said there was nothing unusual in the ongoing process. He highlighted that such deliberations are standard for all bills, although he acknowledged the heightened importance of this particular legislation.

“This bill will come to a debate in parliament, and we will debate it. We will not do anything against the interest of our people. We will ensure our actions align with their thinking. Nigeria is our constituency, and we will do justice to it, Insha’Allah. I am not far from the thinking of my constituency,” he added.

We’ll be guided by national interest – Doguwa

The Leader of the Northern Regional Caucus in the House of Representatives, Rep. Alhassan Ado Doguwa, has assured that lawmakers from the region will prioritise national interest in deliberating on the proposed tax reform bills.

Speaking to reporters after an interactive session on the bills, Doguwa emphasised the importance of a meticulous and inclusive legislative process.

He stressed that the caucus would ensure justice for Nigerians by carefully examining the bills before their passage.

“These proposed bills are fundamentally about fiscal federalism, focusing on the equitable sharing of resources among federating units and key government institutions,” Doguwa said.

He further explained that lawmakers would avoid rushing the legislative process to prevent enacting laws that fail to address the nation’s economic realities effectively.

“National interest will be our guiding principle. We will thoroughly study the bills clause by clause to ensure they serve the people and align with the country’s overarching needs.

“We will continue consultations at the state and regional levels to raise awareness among our members and other stakeholders. Ultimately, the law will reflect the collective good of the people,” he added.

Current VAT distribution favours few states, unfair to others – FIRS boss

The Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Dr. Zacch Adedeji, has criticised the current allocation of Value Added Tax (VAT) proceeds, which channels 70 per cent of the revenue to Lagos, Rivers, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

He described this arrangement as unfair to the remaining 34 states.

Adedeji disclosed that Lagos alone received 42 per cent of October’s VAT proceeds, while Rivers, Oyo, and the FCT received 16 per cent, 5.2 per cent, and 10 per cent, respectively.

“This structure does not reflect Nigeria’s collective interest. VAT is derived from consumption, and 70 per cent of consumption occurs outside these states,” he said, noting that many revenue-generating companies are headquartered in Lagos and Rivers, skewing VAT distribution.

To illustrate the imbalance, Adedeji cited MTN, Nigeria’s leading mobile telecommunications provider, which contributes the highest VAT revenue to Lagos, despite offering services nationwide.

He highlighted the disparity in VAT allocations, revealing that states like Borno and Bauchi receive as little as 0.32 per cent and 0.4 per cent of proceeds, respectively.

“Every time I sign off VAT proceeds, it doesn’t feel like this structure represents our national values. This is why the president, in his wisdom, has proposed changes to ensure fairness,” Adedeji remarked.

The FIRS boss assured lawmakers that the proposed reforms aim to distribute VAT proceeds more equitably, focusing on consumption, rather than the location of corporate headquarters.

“Under this bill, all states—irrespective of their economic situations—would benefit. It’s about ensuring a fairer structure that aligns with the national interest,” he added.

Similarly, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Taiwo Oyedele, clarified that the proposed tax reform bills are designed to create equal opportunities for all states without favouring any region.

Speaking on VAT distribution, Oyedele explained that the current policy requires companies to remit VAT from their headquarters, disproportionately benefiting states where these headquarters are located.

He emphasised that the reforms aim to address this inequity.

“Under the current VAT Act, revenue is allocated as follows: 15 per cent to the Federal Government, 50% to states and the FCT, and 35 per cent to local governments.

“The proposed law seeks to reduce the federal government’s share and ensure companies remit VAT based on where taxable services are delivered,” Oyedele said.

He noted that the reforms are not intended to impact negatively on any region but to foster fairness and align VAT revenue allocation with economic activity across the country.

Regarding Nigeria’s broader fiscal structure, Oyedele highlighted the nation’s eight main revenue sources: personal income tax, property tax, stamp duties, value-added tax (VAT), and land-related taxes (primarily collected by states), alongside corporate income tax, customs duties, and petroleum and solid minerals revenue (shared among the federal, state, and local governments).

He lamented the underperformance of all these revenue streams but expressed optimism about their untapped potential.

“The unfortunate reality is that every one of these revenue sources is underperforming. However, the good news is that they all represent opportunities for significant improvement,” he said.

Oyedele also pointed out the inadequacy of Nigeria’s budget relative to its size, stressing the need for reforms to enhance revenue generation and financing capabilities.

The proposed reforms, he said, aim to recalibrate the fiscal framework, reduce imbalances, and promote sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all Nigerians.

[DailyTrust]