July 20, (THEWILL) — A few months ago, an angry citizen looked me straight in the eye and accused me of “promoting tax laws written to exploit the average Nigerian citizen.” The very next week, during a technical presentation on the newly implemented Tax Reform Acts, another participant publicly suggested I was “acting as an opposition mouthpiece” simply for highlighting some clauses that needed refining in the new Acts.
Welcome to the reality of independent tax advocacy. If you stay strictly in the middle, sticking entirely to statutory text and economic data, you are bound to get caught in the friendly fire of both sides.
Taxation, by its very architecture, is where the State and the citizen have their most intimate and friction-filled encounter. Because it directly touches the pocket, it immediately triggers deeply entrenched survival instincts. Over the past few years of driving consistent tax advocacy, especially surrounding the sweeping changes introduced by the landmark Tax Reform Acts, the public response has been a fascinating study in human psychology. When a nation undergoes a structural fiscal overhaul, objective analysis is frequently the first thing crowded out by political polarization.
Caught in the Middle: Technical Reality vs. Political Theatre
In a highly politically charged environment, the space for a neutral, technical evaluation shrinks dramatically. On one side of the public divide, discourse is heavily influenced by a systemic skepticism toward State institutions. On the other side, defensive enthusiasm often seeks to downplay legitimate administrative hurdles. Navigating this crossfire requires a calm, unapologetic commitment to the written text of the law.
For tax advocacy to meaningfully serve national development, we have to separate the technical reality of fiscal policy from the emotional theater of partisan politics.
The deepest irony I have observed across several public and private engagements is that the loudest opinions often come from those who haven’t yet flipped open the official gazettes to read the provisions they are contesting. Treating complex macroeconomic reforms like a football match, where you must blindly cheer your team’s goals and boo every single move made by the opponent, is incredibly risky for national growth. This emotional bias distorts the true impact of the law, making us miss both the wins and the warnings.
The Pitfalls of “Footballing” Fiscal Policy
When we view tax through a purely partisan lens, we run into two distinct problems:
Missing the Progressive Wins: Intense political skepticism can cause people to overlook genuinely pro-poor clauses simply because of the administration under which they were passed. Under the updated frameworks, micro and small companies with an annual turnover not greater than N100 million and fixed assets of N250 million and below are insulated from Companies Income Tax (CIT) and tax on Capital Gains. Similarly, every individual is guaranteed a zero percent tax rate on N800,000 of chargeable income, securing relief on their Personal Income Tax (PIT) liability—though this also raises valid criticism on reasonability based on prevailing economic realities.
Furthermore, under the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, a vast range of everyday consumer items are now zero-rated or completely exempt from VAT. Essential goods like basic food items, educational materials, and healthcare services are taxed at 0%, ensuring input VAT recoverability, while shared passenger transport and disability-related products enjoy full exemptions to protect vulnerable households.
These are objectively progressive, data-driven adjustments designed to protect vulnerable populations, yet they are easily drowned out by ambient political noise.
Glossing Over Administrative Friction
Conversely, uncritical political support sometimes attempts to mask severe legislative friction that urgently requires professional scrutiny. The heated parliamentary debates we witnessed over the revised VAT distribution model and collection thresholds were not acts of economic sabotage; they were essential democratic checks.
A prime example is the expanded investigative and enforcement oversight granted to tax authorities. Mandating financial institutions to submit transaction reports for individual accounts with over N50 million and corporate accounts over N250 million in cumulative monthly transactions introduces a highly sensitive level of compliance monitoring over private capital. Pointing out the potential for regulatory overreach or the severe operational strain these reporting thresholds place on compliance teams isn’t unpatriotic; it is an essential part of making the law workable. Likewise, many commentators have also raised privacy concerns.
Beyond individual transaction tracking, the implementation mechanics of these updated frameworks expose a deeper structural vulnerability: our digital readiness. Mandating real-time reporting and automated VAT integration requires an IT infrastructure that many small-to-medium businesses simply do not possess. When policy velocity outpaces infrastructural capacity, compliance costs skyrocket, inadvertently penalizing the exact businesses the law intends to protect. Advocacy must therefore address not just what the law dictates, but whether the digital nervous system of our economy can support it without crashing.
Holding the Line: An Unapologetic Stance on Facts
My response to both sides has always been, and will remain, perfectly simple: I look strictly at the text of the law. Tax arithmetic does not possess an ideological bias. A flawed fiscal provision will depress economic productivity regardless of who proposed it. Conversely, a structurally sound, economically neutral tax law will stabilize the macroeconomy and drive long-term infrastructure funding, no matter who sits in the executive chambers.
As finance and tax professionals, our role is to act as calculators, not cheerleaders. If a transitional guideline simplifies compliance, we must defend its merits with numbers. If an enforcement clause threatens business continuity, we must highlight it with data.
At this critical juncture in Nigeria’s economic journey, we cannot afford to let our fiscal future be dictated by political sentiment. We can disagree on economic philosophies, but those disagreements must happen within the boundaries of factual accuracy and statutory text.
Furthermore, we must look critically at the delicate balance of fiscal federalism through the lens of equity. The fierce political pushback against the revised VAT distribution model, which sought to aggressively allocate revenue based on the place of consumption rather than the point of corporate registration is a prime example of political interest delaying progressive economic reform. Transitioning to a consumption-based derivation model is objectively the right fiscal path; it ensures that tax revenues are rightfully returned to the sub-national economies where the actual consumer spending and infrastructure strain occur.
Yet, the original, robust model was heavily opposed by the political class and ultimately diluted. This compromise proves our core problem: when a structurally sound, equitable tax policy is dragged into the theater of political survival, the math loses to sentiment. If we are to achieve true national development, our revenue distribution models must be guided by economic justice and data, not by the protective instincts of the political elite.
When we anchor our national conversations in technical truth rather than sentiment, we transform tax from a tool of partisan division into what it was always meant to be: a predictable, transparent, and democratic instrument for sustainable national development. The remaining task is simply to hold the government accountable for that spending.
•The author, Tomi Akinwale is a chartered accountant, tax consultant, and professional advisor specialising in fiscal policy and compliance.
