Court refuses to stop implementation of new tax laws

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja on Wednesday rejected a request to halt the implementation of Nigeria’s new tax laws, clearing the way for the federal government to commence their enforcement from 1 January (Thursday) as planned.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

The ruling gave the nod to the federal government and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to proceed with the enforcement of four new tax laws enacted in 2025.

The judge, Bello Kawu, in a ruling delivered on Tuesday, struck out an ex parte application filed by the African Initiative for Abuse of Public Trustees, holding that the request lacked merit and failed to establish sufficient legal grounds for interim relief. Being an ex parte application, the request was heard by the court in the absence of the necessary parties.

After rejecting the application on Wednesday, the court fixed 9 January for a hearing that will involve all necessary parties to the dispute.

The plaintiff had sued the Nigerian government, President Bola Tinubu, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly, alleging discrepancies in the tax laws recently signed by the president.

The group sought an interim injunction restraining the federal government, FIRS, the National Assembly and other relevant agencies from implementing the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025; and the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025, pending the determination of its substantive suit.

It also requested that the court restrain the president from enforcing the laws across the federation pending the hearing of its motion on notice.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

Ruling

But in rejecting the applicant’s request, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the implementation of the tax laws would cause irreparable harm or violate any provision of the constitution.

The judge held that fiscal policy and economic reforms fall within the powers of the government and that disagreements over duly enacted tax laws cannot, on their own, justify halting their implementation.

He further noted that once a law has been validly enacted and gazetted, any alleged errors or controversies arising from it can only be addressed through legislative amendment or a substantive court order, not by an interim injunction.

He also ruled that an ex parte motion, which is an application heard by the court in the absence of the adverse parties, cannot be used to set aside the implementation of an enacted law.

Consequently, the court held that there was no legal impediment to the commencement of the new tax regime and affirmed that implementation should proceed as scheduled on 1 January.

He said “the court lacks power to stop implementation of a law already signed by the appropriate authority without concrete evidence of any wrongdoing.”

The judge added in the certified true copy of the ruling circulated online, “At this preliminary stage it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove any wrongdoing because at this stage the court should be careful not to touch on the main issue.

“It is my considered opinion that granting injunction at this preliminary stage will be touching the subject matter in the main suit. It should be noted that once an Act is signed into law, it can only be repealed by the lawmakers or any offending section set aside by the court of law. Be that as it may, an ex parte application cannot be used to set aside the coming into force of any Act already signed into law or gazetted.

“In view of the above, the implementation of the Tax Act 2025 and other related Acts will commence on 1 January 2026 and continue to be in force pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion before this Honourable Court.”

He then fixed 9 January for further hearing.

The tax law controversies

The controversies center on four major tax laws signed in 2025 as part of the federal government’s broader fiscal and economic reform agenda.

The laws consolidate and replace several existing statutes governing companies’ income tax, personal income tax, value-added tax, capital gains tax and stamp duties.

According to the federal government, the reforms are aimed at boosting non-oil revenue, simplifying tax administration, expanding the tax base and reducing revenue leakages, while introducing technology-driven systems such as digital filing and electronic compliance monitoring.

The laws also restructure federal tax administration through the establishment of the Nigeria Revenue Service and the strengthening of coordination across federal, state and local governments via a Joint Revenue Board.

However, the laws drew controversies following disclosure on the floor of the House of Representatives in December 2025, when a lawmaker, Abdulsamad Dasuki (PDP, Sokoto), raised a matter of privilege alleging that the contents of the recently gazetted tax laws did not reflect what lawmakers debated and approved.

Mr Dasuki told the House that the discrepancies had compromised his legislative rights and those of his colleagues.

PREMIUM TIMES reported that the allegation prompted the House to set up a seven-member ad hoc committee to investigate claims of discrepancies between the tax laws passed by the National Assembly and the versions later gazetted and made publicly available.

READ ALSO: No going back on new tax laws implementation from January 1 Tinubu

The issue has generated public debate, with some civil society groups, professional bodies and lawmakers raising concerns over the discrepancies between the versions of the bills passed by the National Assembly and those later gazetted.

Those concerns culminated in the suit being dismissed by the FCT High Court, clearing the final legal obstacle to the rollout of the new tax regime.

The federal government has brushed off calls to suspend implementation of the laws pending a thorough investigations into the discrepancies in the laws.