By Chiwuike Uba
The 2025 fiscal reform package in Nigeria represents one of the most ambitious efforts to modernise the country’s tax system in recent history. It comprises four key laws: the Nigeria Tax Act (NTA), the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), the Nigeria Revenue Service Act (NRSA), and the Joint Revenue Board Act (JRBA).
Together, these laws aim to simplify tax administration, reduce legal ambiguity, enhance transparency, strengthen revenue governance, and improve voluntary compliance.
The stakes are significant: Nigeria’s tax compliance has historically remained below 35 per cent of potential revenue, and investor confidence is acutely sensitive to perceptions of fiscal stability and institutional reliability. The success of these reforms depends not only on sound policy design but also on public trust, effective communication, and professional engagement.
In times of major reform, public discourse carries enormous weight. Statements issued by professional bodies are read as authoritative; they shape public understanding, influence investor behaviour, and either reinforce or undermine confidence in institutions. Professional bodies do not merely comment on policy; they help shape it.
Their authority and credibility carry societal and economic consequences. Words from such quarters do not simply convey information; they frame debates and produce tangible outcomes. Authority brings responsibility, and responsibility includes an ethical obligation to avoid causing preventable harm.
Against this backdrop, a recent statement by a professional body alleging that the Nigeria Tax Act 2025 had been altered after passage by the National Assembly sparked widespread discussion. Beyond the immediate controversy, the episode highlights a deeper question: what standards should guide professional bodies when commenting on sensitive national matters?
An allegation that a duly passed law has been altered after legislative approval is not trivial. In legal and constitutional terms, it is grave. Such an assertion implies procedural breakdown, possible misconduct, or systemic failure within core democratic institutions. If substantiated, it would suggest failures not only in legislative drafting but also in authentication, certification, and executive oversight, striking at the very foundation of governance.
Because of this seriousness, any claim of post-passage alteration must meet an exceptionally high evidentiary threshold. Responsible professional communication requires that such claims identify the specific provisions allegedly altered, demonstrate how the text differs from what was passed by the legislature, and explain when, how, and by whom any changes were introduced outside constitutionally recognised procedures. Without these elements, allegations remain speculative rather than probative. The ethical concern extends beyond factual accuracy, because unsubstantiated claims can inflict institutional harm, unsettle markets, and erode public confidence before claims are tested or corrected.
The National Assembly has only recently released the gazetted and assented 2025 Nigeria Tax laws for public access, providing the first opportunity for detailed external examination. While preliminary review may not immediately reveal inconsistencies, comprehensive scrutiny is only beginning. Moreover, the committee, or rather the National Assembly caucus, investigating the alleged alterations has not concluded its work nor issued any report. Any definitive statement asserting that the Act has been altered is therefore premature. For a professional accounting body to issue such a statement without evidence or official confirmation depicts gross irresponsibility, undermining both public trust and professional credibility.
It is also important to distinguish between lawful legislative evolution and unlawful alteration. Differences between early drafts, committee reports, harmonised conference versions, and the final gazetted Act are routine in legislative practice. Renumbering, technical refinements, harmonisation of provisions, and drafting corrections commonly occur before final passage and assent to ensure coherence and clarity. Such differences do not constitute unlawful alteration unless evidence demonstrates that changes were introduced outside constitutionally recognised procedures after passage. To date, no verified evidence of post-passage alteration has been publicly documented, and the official investigative work is ongoing, further underscoring the need for caution.
Historical precedent reinforces this prudence. During earlier fiscal reforms, including the 2011 VAT amendments and the Finance Acts beginning in 2019, professional debate often focused on policy clarity, implementation risks, and administrative capacity. These discussions, though robust, rarely escalated into claims of post-passage tampering because the legislative and authentication processes were transparent and well documented.
At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental principle of professional ethics: the obligation to do no harm.
While commonly associated with medicine, this principle applies equally to law, accounting, economics, and public policy, disciplines in which professional statements can materially affect institutions, markets, livelihoods, and public trust. In professional communication, doing no harm requires foresight about consequences. Professionals must consider not only whether a statement is defensible, but also whether it is proportionate, responsibly framed, and necessary in light of foreseeable effects.
Professional bodies occupy a unique position in society. Their statements are presumed to be grounded in technical expertise, objectivity, and ethical discipline. With that privilege comes a dual responsibility: to speak honestly and to avoid causing unnecessary harm through speculation, exaggeration, or premature conclusions. Ethical codes across disciplines emphasise accuracy, fairness, evidence-based reasoning, and service to the public interest. Embedded within these norms is an implicit do-no-harm obligation, reflected in the expectation that professionals exercise restraint when uncertainty exists and seek clarification before making public pronouncements.
Prof. Uba, an economist, public policy analyst, tax reform specialist and governance scholar, can be reached via chiwuike@gmail.com.
In this article