The Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee has dismissed reports claiming that the Minister of State for Finance, Taiwo Oyedele, admitted errors in Nigeria’s newly enacted tax laws, describing such interpretations as misleading and a distortion of his remarks.
In a statement shared via Oyedele’s X account, the Committee clarified that media reports suggesting the minister acknowledged faults in the new tax framework and called for corrective legislation misrepresented his position.
On April 11, several publications reported that Oyedele had conceded the presence of errors in the tax laws and indicated that a finance bill would be introduced to address them. However, the Committee maintained that while references were made to discrepancies arising during the legislative drafting process, these should not be interpreted as an admission of substantive flaws in the laws.
“Our attention has been drawn to misleading media reports claiming that the Honourable Minister of State for Finance, Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, has ‘finally admitted errors in the new tax laws,’” the statement read.
The Committee explained that any discrepancies referenced were linked to the law-making process, including manual drafting procedures and multiple stages of review. It noted that Oyedele had acknowledged that such issues can occur during complex legislative processes but did not concede that the tax laws themselves were fundamentally defective.
It also refuted claims that the minister urged Nigerians to await the outcome of a legislative probe.
“These publications misrepresent the Minister’s statements, falsely alleging that he urged Nigerians to await the outcome of a ‘legislative probe’, a process that has long been concluded and the gazetted copies certified by the National Assembly published since early January 2026,” the statement added.
READ ALSO: Oyedele admits errors in new tax laws, says finance bill underway to correct gaps
According to the Committee, framing the remarks as an admission of error risks confusing the public and undermining the objectives of the reforms, describing the narrative as “unhelpful” and inaccurate.
Oyedele, who chairs the Committee, spoke at the 2026 Annual Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal Practice in Lagos, where he outlined the rationale for the reforms.
He explained that the changes were introduced to address structural inefficiencies in Nigeria’s tax system, particularly disparities between how individuals and corporate entities are taxed.
“Under the old system, an individual could pay an effective tax rate of about 19 per cent, but registering the same business as a company pushed the burden above 40 per cent. This was the opposite of global best practice,” he said.
The Committee stressed that while continuous improvements are part of any reform process, such updates through finance bills should not be interpreted as evidence of foundational errors.
During a fireside chat at the conference, Oyedele pointed to early signs of progress, including a reported surge in tax registration and business formalisation.
According to the Committee, thousands of informal businesses are now seeking registration daily, and the number of individuals captured within the tax net has reportedly increased from fewer than 10 million to over 100 million.
The gains, it said, stem from reform features such as exemptions for small companies, higher income thresholds for low earners, and tax relief on essential goods and services including food, healthcare, education, transportation and rent.
In June 2025, Bola Ahmed Tinubu signed four major tax reform laws aimed at strengthening revenue mobilisation and reducing Nigeria’s dependence on oil earnings.
Subsequently, in March 2026, the Federal Government introduced presumptive tax rules targeting Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) as part of efforts to broaden the tax base.
The reforms have not been without controversy. In December 2025, lawmaker Abdulsammad Dasuki raised concerns over discrepancies between gazetted versions of the tax laws and those passed by the National Assembly.
Despite the debate, the Committee reiterated its commitment to ongoing stakeholder engagement and refinement of implementation processes, insisting that legislative updates are a standard part of reform cycles rather than proof of systemic failure.