Adeyanju Slams Alleged Tax Bill Tampering

The burgeoning controversy surrounding the Tax Reform Bill has drawn the ire of prominent human rights lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju, who has characterized the situation as a direct assault on the foundations of Nigerian democracy. Adeyanju’s outcry follows emerging reports suggesting that the legislative document signed into law by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is fundamentally different from the version scrutinized and passed by the National Assembly.

To the legal practitioner, such an act, if proven true, represents a historic low for the nation’s governance since its return to civilian rule in 1999. Adeyanju argues that the sanctity of the legislative process is the heartbeat of a constitutional republic, and any unauthorized alteration of a bill post-passage is an affront to the collective will of the Nigerian people represented by their lawmakers.

In a sharply worded statement, Adeyanju noted that the reports of material differences between the approved and assented versions are deeply troubling. He warned that the executive branch has no constitutional authority to add, remove, or modify even a single comma in a bill once it has left the floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The activist emphasized that the President’s role in the lawmaking process is strictly binary: either to give assent to the exact document provided or to veto it and return it to the legislature with reasons. Any deviation from this path, he contends, is not just a procedural error but a criminal subversion of the democratic order that borders on forgery and executive overreach.

Adeyanju challenged the Tinubu administration to address these allegations with total transparency rather than strategic silence. He argued that the credibility of the government hangs in the balance, as an administration that cannot be trusted with the integrity of its own laws risks losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the international community.

The activist did not mince words when describing the potential implications of the scandal. He asserted that if the government fails to provide a clear explanation or publish a certified true copy of the bill passed by the National Assembly for public comparison, it would reinforce the perception that the current leadership is operating like a “criminal enterprise” rather than a legitimate democratic institution.

This controversy comes at a time when the Nigerian populace is already highly sensitive to tax reforms, which many fear will increase the cost of living. Adeyanju pointed out that changing the terms of such a significant bill in the shadows suggests a lack of courage to debate the actual provisions in the light of day. It implies that there may be clauses tucked into the final version that the lawmakers never saw or sanctioned.

The demand for accountability is now at the forefront of the national discourse. Adeyanju and other civil society actors are calling for an immediate forensic audit of the legislative trail of the Tax Reform Bill. They want to see the exact point where the alleged “tampering” occurred—whether in the transition from the National Assembly to the Presidential Villa or within the inner sanctum of the executive’s legal department.

Furthermore, Adeyanju highlighted that the National Assembly itself must stand up for its own independence. He suggested that if the lawmakers remain silent while their constitutional powers are being usurped and their work is being mocked, they are complicit in the erosion of the very institution they were elected to protect. The independence of the legislature is a non-negotiable pillar of the separation of powers.

The legal activist’s reaction reflects a broader anxiety regarding the transparency of the current administration’s policy-making process. For many observers, this incident is not just about tax law; it is about the precedent it sets. If a president can unilaterally “edit” a law after it has been passed, the entire legislative process becomes a mere formality rather than a substantive exercise of power.

Adeyanju concluded by demanding that the federal government immediately release the authenticated version of the bill as it was transmitted from the Clerk of the National Assembly. He believes that only by placing both documents side-by-side in the public domain can the administration clear its name and restore some semblance of trust in the democratic process.

As the debate intensifies, legal experts are watching closely to see if the judiciary will be called upon to interpret the validity of the assented bill. If the version signed by the President is indeed different from the one passed by the legislature, the courts may be forced to declare the entire law null and void, creating a massive vacuum in the government’s economic agenda.

For now, the ball remains in the court of the Presidency. Adeyanju’s critique has set the stage for a major constitutional showdown, one that will test whether Nigeria is a nation governed by the rule of law or by the whims of executive convenience. The call for clarity is loud, and the demand for a “government of laws, not of men” has never felt more urgent.