Who Is Afraid Of Tinubu’s Tax Reform? (OPINION)
By Isaac Asabor
As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration embarks on its ambitious economic reforms, one of the most contentious and consequential initiatives is the proposed overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system. Not only been touted to be a critical measure to revitalize the nation’s finances when fully implemented, the reform aims to address chronic revenue shortfalls, curb tax evasion, and expand the tax base. Yet, as with any transformative agenda, the tax reform has sparked a wave of apprehension across different sectors of the economy.
The proposal to expand the country’s revenue streams, including through a harmonized Value Added Tax (VAT) system, has drawn criticism from various quarters. Notably, governors in the northern region of Nigeria have raised objections to certain aspects of the reform. Their resistance, combined with a broader cultural and socio-political debate, underscores the complexity of implementing such a sweeping policy.
Despite the baseless apprehension which the move has sparked across the nation, there is no denying the fact that there is an urgent need for tax reform. As gathered, Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio, which stands at about 6.1%, is one of the lowest globally, far below the average of 16.5% for sub-Saharan Africa. This anomaly has long hindered the nation’s capacity to fund essential services and infrastructure. Given the foregoing statistical backdrop, which is no doubt appalling, Tinubu’s tax reform seeks to correct this by improving compliance, plugging revenue leakages, and promoting equity in tax collection.
The proposed reforms include measures to simplify the tax code, introduce digital tax systems, and ensure progressive taxation where wealthier individuals and corporations contribute a fairer share. While these changes promise to boost government revenues, they have also unearthed deep-seated fears among key stakeholders.
Governors from northern Nigeria, who are no doubt largely guided by Islamic principles, have expressed reservations about elements of the tax reform, particularly those relating to VAT. A significant portion of VAT revenue in Nigeria comes from alcohol sales, a product prohibited in many northern states under Sharia law.
Despite their objections to alcohol and their enforcement of bans on its sale and consumption, northern states have consistently benefited from the federal allocation of VAT, including revenue generated from alcohol sales. This paradox has fueled widespread criticism, with observers pointing out the inherent contradiction: how can states destroy beer trucks on one hand and still partake in the sharing of revenues from alcohol taxes on the other?
The issue raises fundamental questions about equity and consistency. If northern states wish to remain beneficiaries of national VAT revenues, they must adopt a fairer stance towards products and industries contributing to the tax pool. Alternatively, they might need to advocate for a regional or state-specific VAT system where revenue generation and allocation align more closely with local practices and laws.
While the political pushback from northern governors garners significant attention, the business community has also voiced apprehension. Many private-sector players worry that increased tax obligations could exacerbate the financial strain on businesses already grappling with inflation, high energy costs, and foreign exchange volatility. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in particular, fear that stricter compliance measures might disproportionately affect their operations, pushing some to the brink of closure.
Corporate executives argue that implementing new tax measures during an economically turbulent period could stifle investment and innovation. They call for a phased approach that allows businesses time to adapt to the changes while safeguarding their profitability.
For ordinary Nigerians, the fear is more visceral. With rising living costs and dwindling purchasing power, any hint of increased taxes feels like a dagger to the heart of survival. Tinubu’s administration has repeatedly assured citizens that the reforms are designed to target high-income earners and large corporations rather than the poor. However, skepticism remains widespread, fueled by a history of mistrust in government initiatives.
The question lingers: “Will these reforms truly avoid cascading effects on consumer prices, or will Nigerians find themselves paying more for basic goods and services?” For many in the northern region, where poverty levels are disproportionately high, the fear is even more pronounced.
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the VAT allocation is the question of alcohol taxes. In northern states where Sharia law is enforced, alcohol is often treated as contraband. This has led to frequent raids and destruction of alcohol products being transported to markets.
While these actions reflect the cultural and religious sentiments of the region, they also create an ethical dilemma. Should states that actively prohibit and destroy a taxable product be entitled to share in the revenues derived from its sale? This question has ignited debates across the country, with many southern stakeholders calling for a reevaluation of the VAT-sharing formula.
Critics argue that it is unjust for northern states to reject the production and consumption of alcohol while benefiting financially from its taxation. This situation, they contend, highlights the need for a more transparent and equitable revenue allocation framework that respects regional differences without fostering dependency or contradiction.
In fact, Tinubu’s tax reform has also faced resistance within political circles. Critics argue that the administration should focus more on cutting government waste and improving expenditure efficiency before increasing taxes. Some elites, accustomed to exploiting loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, are predictably unsettled by the prospect of tighter enforcement.
Political analysts suggest that these opponents may deploy their influence to stymie the reform’s progress, framing it as anti-business or punitive. This opposition underscores the high stakes of the reform agenda and the entrenched interests it threatens to disrupt.
Without any iota of exaggeration, it is not a misnomer to opine that the success of Tinubu’s tax reform will hinge on the administration’s ability to address these regional and sectoral concerns transparently and inclusively. This is as public engagement is crucial to dispel fears and garner support. The government must also demonstrate fiscal discipline by addressing corruption and ensuring that revenues generated through the reform are channeled into tangible improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social services.
For the northern states, this may require a difficult but necessary reckoning. If they wish to continue benefiting from national tax revenues, they must adopt a more equitable stance on industries contributing to the tax pool. Alternatively, Nigeria may need to explore a federal VAT system that allows states to keep revenues generated locally, incentivizing them to adopt policies that encourage economic activity.
Without a doubt, Tinubu’s tax reform is a litmus test for his administration’s resolve to address Nigeria’s fiscal challenges. While fears abound, they should not overshadow the reform’s potential to catalyze a more sustainable and equitable economy.
The controversy over northern states’ stance on alcohol taxes encapsulates the broader challenge: balancing cultural, religious, and economic considerations in a diverse nation. The question is not just “Who is afraid of Tinubu’s tax reform?” but also, “Who is willing to embrace it for the greater good of Nigeria?”
In navigating this delicate terrain, the government must remember that meaningful reform requires not just bold ideas but also empathy, fairness, and inclusivity. If managed correctly, these reforms could lay the foundation for a stronger, more unified Nigeria where all states contribute equitably and benefit proportionately.
