News Rendezvous

News Rendezvous

Fresh constitutional concerns have emerged over allegations that Nigeria’s recently passed Tax Reform Law was altered after approval by the National Assembly, a development legal experts say could amount to grounds for impeachment if proven.

A group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives has raised the alarm over what they describe as unauthorised post-passage modifications to the harmonised version of the tax bills transmitted to the Presidency and subsequently gazetted by the Federal Government.

According to the lawmakers, some of the changes contained in the circulating versions did not receive legislative approval and cannot be dismissed as mere clerical corrections.

The allegation, now generating national debate, strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s constitutional law-making process and raises the question of whether such conduct could constitute gross misconduct under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Why the Allegations Matter

Under Sections 4 and 58 of the Constitution, the power to make laws is vested exclusively in the National Assembly, while the role of the President is limited to assent or refusal. Once a bill is passed by both chambers, the executive has no constitutional authority to amend its substance.

Legal analysts note that any material alteration made after legislative passage without recourse to the National Assembly could amount to a usurpation of legislative powers and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.“This is not just a technical issue; it goes to the legitimacy of the law itself,” a constitutional lawyer told Rendezvous News.

“If the executive altered the bill beyond typographical corrections, the law becomes constitutionally vulnerable.”

Impeachment Implications

Beyond questions of legality, the controversy has reignited debate over impeachment under Section 143 of the Constitution. The section defines gross misconduct as a grave violation of the Constitution or conduct deemed sufficiently serious by the National Assembly.

Legal experts argue that deliberate interference with a duly passed bill could qualify as such a violation, particularly if it is shown to have been done knowingly and without legislative consent.

“If established, post-passage tampering with a bill could form part of an impeachment allegation,” a legal aide said. “It undermines legislative supremacy and amounts to an abuse of executive authority.”While impeachment is ultimately a political process, constitutional scholars stress that the threshold is not criminality alone but conduct that fundamentally threatens constitutional order.

Burden of Proof and Legislative Action

For impeachment proceedings to be initiated, at least one-third of members of the National Assembly must support a notice of allegation, followed by a two-thirds majority to sustain an investigation. Observers note that the current allegations, if substantiated through documentary evidence, could provide the factual basis for such action.However, lawmakers caution that investigations must clearly distinguish between legitimate clerical corrections and substantive policy alterations.

A Test for Constitutional Accountability

The unfolding controversy is increasingly viewed as a test of Nigeria’s democratic institutions and respect for constitutional boundaries. Civil society groups have called for the immediate release of the original harmonised bills passed by the National Assembly to allow for public comparison with the gazetted versions.As pressure mounts, analysts warn that failure to address the allegations transparently could deepen public distrust in the legislative and executive arms of government.Whether or not impeachment proceedings are ultimately pursued, the issue has already spotlighted a critical constitutional question: can any arm of government alter the will of parliament without consequence?-