A new technical review by KPMG Nigeria, providers of audit, tax and advisory services, has raised alarm over Nigeria’s recently enacted federal tax laws, describing them as riddled with drafting flaws, conceptual inconsistencies, and institutional gaps that threaten their workability and economic stability.
The global advisory firm identified thirty-one critical problem areas in the legislation, prompting discreet consultations with the National Revenue Service to address the seriousness of the findings.
According to the report, several aspects of the new tax laws are either unimplementable or internally contradictory, making compliance difficult even for seasoned professionals.
KPMG’s assessment, which has since sparked debate in financial and policy circles, suggests that the laws were passed in haste without adequate stakeholder engagement or technical refinement.
In its summary for public consumption, the firm distilled its critique into three central arguments.
First, the new laws are fundamentally flawed and not ready for enforcement. Second, even experts and practitioners are struggling to interpret several provisions due to ambiguous drafting and policy contradictions. Third, the government’s decision-making process lacked the public consultation that underpins transparent fiscal reform in a democratic system.
Beyond technical shortcomings, the review highlights a more contentious issue—the growing presence of foreign influence in Nigeria’s fiscal policy design.
Though Nigeria has not historically aligned with the French monetary sphere, the introduction of French advisory involvement in aspects of the new tax framework is viewed by analysts as a potential geopolitical turning point.
The question, critics argue, is whether Nigeria is quietly outsourcing elements of its fiscal sovereignty in exchange for foreign support.
Rumours circulating within policy networks suggest that recent development credit lines and electoral assistance from France may be tied to fiscal reform commitments.
If confirmed, such arrangements would mirror European-style policy conditionality, akin to the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s imposed by the International Monetary Fund.
This dynamic, experts warn, could grant foreign actors leverage over Nigeria’s economic policies and access to strategic sectors in the future.
The potential implications are far-reaching. By allowing external interests to shape the contours of national tax policy, Nigeria risks inadvertently ceding control over critical economic decisions that determine wealth distribution, industrial growth, and social welfare.
As KPMG notes, tax systems are not merely technical instruments—they are political and developmental tools that define the balance between state authority and citizen prosperity.
For now, Nigeria faces a fundamental paradox. The federal government seeks to raise revenue but has yet to earn the confidence of taxpayers.
It demands compliance from businesses while offering little clarity on the operational framework. And while pursuing developmental goals through taxation, the current designs, KPMG warns, could choke productivity and drive capital flight.
Policy analysts say the lesson is clear: a tax system conceived without citizen participation, empirical modelling, or transparency is bound to backfire.
It breeds resentment rather than compliance and risks transforming taxation from a civic duty into an instrument of economic persecution. As one senior tax consultant remarked, “Taxation without clarity becomes persecution—and without sovereignty, surrender.”
With KPMG’s findings now in the public domain, the federal government faces mounting pressure to reopen consultations, fix the structural errors, and clarify the intent of its fiscal reforms.
Whether it chooses to act—or to press ahead despite warnings—may determine not just the credibility of Nigeria’s tax system, but the integrity of its economic independence in the years to come.