An independent accountability group has defended the National Assembly leadership over the re-gazetting of Nigeria’s tax reform laws, describing the development as a lawful administrative safeguard rather than a legislative lapse or procedural failure.
In a statement issued on Monday, the Centre for Accountability and Fiscal Responsibility (CAFR) said recent public commentary suggesting errors or misconduct by the legislature misunderstood the constitutional mechanics of lawmaking and the statutory requirements governing the authentication of Acts.
The group said the re-gazetting of the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act 2025, and the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025 followed established parliamentary and legal procedures designed to protect the integrity of the statute book.
CAFR noted that under Nigerian law, particularly the Acts Authentication Act, the National Assembly is obligated to verify that the version of any law presented for official publication exactly reflects what was passed by both chambers and assented to by the president.
According to the group, this process is a routine administrative function and does not imply that the laws were improperly enacted or that legislative authority was compromised.
“The re-gazetting exercise should be understood as a verification mechanism, not a confession of error. Authentication exists to ensure certainty and legal clarity, especially for laws with wide fiscal and economic implications,” said Dr Lawal Sadiq, national president of CAFR.
He said the leadership of the National Assembly acted within constitutional limits by initiating an internal review aimed at aligning legislative records, assent documentation, and published texts, adding that failure to do so could expose the country to avoidable legal disputes.
Sodiq explained that the review did not reopen debate on the substance of the tax reforms, reverse any legislative decision, or encroach on executive or judicial functions, but was limited to administrative confirmation of accuracy and completeness.
The group said tax legislation, by its nature, affects government revenue, business compliance, and citizens’ obligations, making procedural precision essential for enforceability and public confidence.
CAFR dismissed claims that the re-gazetting process signalled institutional weakness or legislative confusion, arguing instead that it reflected restraint, transparency, and respect for constitutional order.
“In mature democracies, legislatures routinely carry out post-assent verifications, correct clerical inconsistencies, and reissue authenticated copies of laws to protect legal certainty,” Sodiq said.
He added that the National Assembly’s decision to prioritise due process over speed demonstrated institutional responsibility, noting that credible laws depend not only on political consensus but also on procedural integrity.
The group also warned that politicising administrative safeguards could undermine public trust in democratic institutions and distort public understanding of how laws are made.
CAFR urged citizens and stakeholders to distinguish between substantive policy disagreements and routine legislative processes, stressing that adherence to procedure strengthens, rather than weakens, the rule of law.
“The strength of a parliament is measured by the credibility of the laws it produces. In insisting on proper authentication and re-gazetting where necessary, the National Assembly acted in defence of legality, certainty, and democratic integrity,” Sodiq said.
The group said the re-gazetting exercise ultimately reinforces confidence in the tax reforms and provides a firmer legal foundation for their implementation.
