By Blaise Udunze

Millions of Nigerian citizens are watching with cautious anticipation as the federal government begins implementing its far-reaching 2026 tax reforms. This is to say that the official assurances that the new tax regime will be fairer, simpler, and more humane, as relished by the proponents of the reforms, are being listened to by both low-income workers, small business owners, professionals, and informal sector participants.

Still, behind the optimism is a familiar worry shaped by past experience that reminds us that taxation without accountability undermines both governance credibility and the legitimacy of the tax system, thereby making it hard to believe in.

For many Nigerians, the question is not whether taxes should be paid, but whether the state has earned the moral authority to demand them, judging by the lack of accountability over the years.

The Nigerian Tax Act and the Nigerian Tax Administration Act, two of the four pillars of the 2026 reforms, came into force on January 1, reshaping how individuals and businesses are taxed. According to proponents of the reforms, particularly the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Dr. Taiwo Oyedele, the changes are deliberately pro-poor and pro-growth. Workers earning below N800,000 annually are exempted from personal income tax. Basic food items, healthcare, education, and public transportation have been removed from the VAT net. Small companies with turnovers of N100 million or less are exempt from corporate income tax, capital gains tax, and the new development levy. Multiple tax laws have been consolidated into a unified code to reduce duplication, confusion, and harassment.

On paper, these reforms acknowledge Nigeria’s economic distress and signal a genuine attempt to lighten the burden on the majority of citizens. However, Nigeria’s tax crisis has never been about tax rates alone.

Nigerians have lived through decades of taxation that did not translate into visible development, social welfare, or improved quality of life, as this has succinctly shown that it is fundamentally about trust. No matter how progressive, for this singular reason, Nigerians see the announcement of the reforms via a long memory of disappointment and failure, while Nigerians have increasingly become vocal in demanding accountability from government at all levels, and social media has played a powerful role in amplifying public scrutiny in recent years.

Images and videos of the alleged lavish lifestyles of public office holders and their families are alarming and circulate widely, reinforcing the perception that public funds are misused or siphoned for private gain. While not all such claims are verified, the damage lies in the perception itself since governance credibility suffers when citizens believe that those entrusted with public resources live far above the realities of the people they govern.

The Nigerian Constitution, while not explicitly mandating accountability in narrow terms, establishes in Section 14 that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. The state is expected to manage the economy in a manner that ensures maximum welfare, freedom, and happiness of citizens on the basis of social justice and equality. The provisions made in Section 22 further empower the media and arm it to the teeth to hold the government accountable to the people and beyond constitutional provisions, Nigeria voluntarily signed up to global transparency initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, domesticated through the NEITI Act of 2007. Over the period, NEITI has helped improve disclosure in the extractive sector, as its mandate does not extend to tracking how revenues are spent, leaving a critical accountability gap.

This gap is most evident in the lived experience of Nigerian taxpayers. Intrinsically, the average Nigerian does not experience taxation as a collective investment in shared prosperity. Instead, taxation feels like an added burden layered on top of already crushing personal responsibilities. Nigerians generate their own electricity through generators, source water privately, pay for security, indirectly fund road maintenance through vehicle repairs, and bear healthcare and education costs out of pocket. When citizens pay taxes and still bear the full cost of survival, taxation begins to resemble organized extraction rather than civic contribution.

For instance, the stories of Mr. George and Mr. Kunle reflect this reality. Mr. George, is an earned salary worker who has personal income tax deducted monthly through PAYE. Meanwhile, George also pays for electricity, security, water, road repairs, and private schooling. What about Mr. Kunle, who is a small business owner and chooses not to pay taxes voluntarily with the belief that the government has failed to meet its obligations and other rights? Their frustration is widely shared. According to the IMF, only about 10 million Nigerians out of a labour force of 77 million are registered taxpayers. This low compliance is not a product of ignorance alone, but of a deeply broken social contract.

Over the years, successive governments have attempted to address low compliance through amnesty schemes such as the Voluntary Asset and Income Declaration Scheme. Though these initiatives temporarily expanded the tax base, their long-term impact remains questionable because compliance driven by fear of penalties or temporary incentives does not endure where trust is absent. In Nigeria, tax compliance is often compelled rather than voluntary, just as we are about to experience in this new regime, enforcement tends to replace persuasion. This approach may generate short-term revenue, but it weakens legitimacy and fuels resistance.

Academic studies on taxation and accountability in Nigeria reinforce this conclusion. While global literature suggests a strong relationship between government accountability and voluntary tax compliance, Nigeria’s experience has been distorted by weak institutions and limited political legitimacy. This should be noted by the policymakers that where citizens perceive government as unaccountable, coercion increases, collection costs rise, and evasion becomes normalized. Hence while, the result is a vicious cycle in which low trust breeds low compliance, prompting harsher enforcement that further erodes trust.

Other jurisdictions offer valuable lessons. For instance, today, a country like Sweden has one of the highest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world with remarkably high compliance rates, and this has been the norm despite imposing steep personal income taxes. The reason is simple, in the sense that transparency and visible benefits are not far-fetched. Citizens know how their taxes are spent and experience the returns through quality education, healthcare, social security, and public services. Taxation is viewed not as punishment but as a shared investment. In China, targeted tax deductions for healthcare and education similarly align taxation with social needs, reinforcing compliance through perceived fairness.

Nigeria’s challenge is not to replicate these systems mechanically, but to internalize their core principle that enables the people to comply willingly when they believe the system works and that everyone is treated fairly.

This principle is being tested anew by the recent controversy surrounding the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s (now branded as Nigeria Revenue Service) appointment of Xpress Payments Solutions Limited as a Treasury Single Account collecting agent. Though framed as a technical step toward modernizing digital tax infrastructure, the quiet nature of the appointment, coupled with limited public disclosure, has reignited fears of revenue capture and cartelization. Critics have drawn parallels with past private-sector dominance over state revenue systems, warning against concentrating sensitive national revenue functions in private hands without clear safeguards.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s reaction captured the broader public unease. He raised an alarm while warning against what he described as the nationalization of a revenue collection model that had previously raised serious transparency concerns and the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) has insisted that Xpress Payments is merely an additional option and not an exclusive gatekeeper, the controversy highlights a deeper issue, which authenticates the fact that in a climate of low trust, silence, and lack of clarity, suspicion. Even well-intentioned reforms can falter if citizens feel excluded from the process.

With broader concerns about governance, accountability, and democratic integrity in society, this moment coincides with it. Even the recent calls by leaders such as Rotimi Amaechi and civil society organizations like ActionAid Nigeria underscore the growing demand for responsible, transparent and people-oriented leadership as being raised from different quarters. Governance indices consistently rank Nigeria poorly on accountability, while poverty, unemployment and insecurity remain widespread. That is what, in such a context, asking citizens to trust the tax system without first restoring confidence in governance is unrealistic and unattainable.

At the core of the debate lies a fundamental moral question: when does a government have the right to tax its citizens? Taxation is not charity and it is not magic. It is a contract. Citizens surrender a portion of their income so the state can provide security, infrastructure, justice, and essential services that individuals cannot efficiently provide on their own. When this exchange functions, taxation feels legitimate. When it fails, taxation feels coercive.

No doubt, legally, the Nigerian state retains the power to tax, but morally, legitimacy depends on performance. Security is foundational. Infrastructure enables productivity. The government must understand that healthcare and education protect human capital, while transparency ensures fairness. And, when these pillars are weak, taxation loses its ethical grounding. All that Nigerians demand is not perfection; they demand evidence that their sacrifices matter.

As the implementation of the new tax reforms takes root, Nigeria stands at a defining moment. The reforms offer an opportunity to reset the social contract around taxation, broaden the tax base, and reduce dependence on dwindling oil revenues. But the point being flagged is that reform without accountability will only reproduce old failures in new forms. To buttress this further, taxation without accountability, as being practiced in the past, will invariably undermine governance credibility and erode the legitimacy of the tax system.

And, as the scripture says, you cannot put “old wine in a new wineskin.” Failure to adhere to this instruction will lead to combustion. Yesterday’s methods or mindsets on taxation will rupture new strategies, which cannot thrive or survive because of a lack of accountability.

If the government is serious about improving voluntary compliance, it must go beyond policy announcements. Hence, must demonstrate transparent use of tax revenues, strengthen oversight institutions, limit monopolistic control over revenue collection, and communicate clearly and consistently with citizens. Most importantly, it must deliver tangible improvements in the daily lives of all Nigerians.

When citizens see roads fixed, hospitals working, schools improving, and security strengthened, compliance will follow. Voluntary tax compliance is not an act of generosity; it is a rational response to trust. Fix the system, restore confidence, and Nigerians will pay, not because they are forced, but because the contract finally makes sense.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

By Fola Baderin

By 2030, more than 25 billion devices are expected to be connected worldwide, each one a potential gateway for both innovation and risk. Already, 87% of companies identify AI as a top business priority, and over 76% are actively using AI in their operations. These numbers reflect a profound shift: technology is no longer a backstage support act but a strategic force shaping economies, societies, and everyday life.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) sit at the heart of this transformation. Together, they are redefining how decisions are made, how risks are managed, and how value is created across industries. From hospitals monitoring patients in real time to banks using predictive analytics to stop fraud before it happens, AI and IoT are moving from abstract concepts to everyday business tools.

Yet this expansion comes with complexity. As organisations embrace cloud platforms, remote work, and IoT‑enabled systems, their digital footprints grow larger, and so do the threats. Cybersecurity has become a frontline issue, no longer a technical afterthought but a pillar of resilience and trust.

The role of IT has changed dramatically. Once focused on maintenance and uptime, IT teams now sit at the centre of strategy and risk management. Cloud‑first architectures and interconnected networks have introduced new vulnerabilities, forcing IT leaders to act not just as problem‑solvers but as proactive partners in innovation.

AI is proving indispensable in this new environment. It can analyse vast datasets, detect anomalies, and automate responses at machine speed, capabilities that traditional approaches simply cannot match. Combined with IoT, AI delivers real‑time visibility across connected devices, enabling predictive maintenance, intelligent monitoring, and faster decision‑making. These are not abstract benefits; they are the difference between preventing a cyberattack in seconds or suffering a costly breach.

But the story is not only about opportunity. The rapid adoption of AI and IoT raises pressing questions about ethics, privacy, and governance. Automated decision‑making must be transparent, accountable, and fair. Organisations also face a widening skills gap, as demand for professionals who can responsibly manage advanced technologies outpaces supply.

Striking the right balance between innovation and control is essential. Security‑by‑design principles, strong governance frameworks, and continuous risk assessment are no longer optional extras. They are the foundation for trust in a digital economy.

Looking ahead, IT will continue to evolve as AI and IoT become embedded in everyday operations. Success depends not only on adopting advanced technologies, but on aligning them with business goals, regulations, and culture.

For Nigeria, this transformation is both a challenge and an opportunity. With its vibrant fintech sector, growing digital economy, and youthful workforce, the country is well‑placed to harness AI and IoT for growth. Lagos alone hosts hundreds of startups experimenting with AI‑driven financial services, while smart city initiatives in Abuja and other urban centres are exploring IoT for traffic management, energy efficiency, and public safety.

At the same time, Nigeria faces unique vulnerabilities. The country has one of the fastest‑growing internet populations in Africa, but also one of the most targeted by cybercriminals. Reports suggest that Africa loses over $4 billion annually to cybercrime, with Nigeria accounting for a significant share. As more devices and systems come online, the stakes will only rise.

Government policy will play a decisive role. Nigeria’s National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020–2030) already highlights AI and IoT as critical enablers of growth. But translating policy into practice requires investment in infrastructure, stronger regulatory frameworks, and public‑private collaboration. Without these, the promise of AI and IoT could be undermined by weak security and poor governance.

Education and skills development are equally vital. Nigeria’s youthful population which is over 60% under the age of 25 represents a massive opportunity if properly trained. Universities and technical institutes must integrate AI, cybersecurity, and IoT into their curricula, while businesses should invest in continuous upskilling. Otherwise, the skills gap will widen, leaving organisations vulnerable and innovation stunted.

Ethics and trust must also remain central. Nigerians are increasingly aware of data privacy concerns, from mobile banking to health records. Embedding transparency and accountability into AI systems will be critical for public acceptance. Leaders must ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fairness or human rights.

Real‑world examples already show the potential. Nigerian hospitals are beginning to explore AI‑enabled diagnostic tools, while logistics companies use IoT to track deliveries in real time. These innovations demonstrate how technology can improve lives and strengthen businesses, but they also highlight the need for robust safeguards.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s digital future will be shaped not only by technology but by leadership. IT leaders, policymakers, and entrepreneurs who embrace AI and IoT responsibly with a clear focus on security, ethics, and long‑term value creation. This will be best positioned to navigate an increasingly complex threat landscape. The question is no longer whether to adopt these technologies, but how to do so in a way that builds resilience, trust, and sustainable growth for Nigeria’s digital economy.

Fola Baderin is a cybersecurity consultant and AI advocate focused on shaping Nigeria’s digital future

By Blaise Udunze

When the federal government approved the write-off of about $1.42 billion and N5.57 trillion in legacy debts owed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) to the Federation Account, it was rightly described as a landmark decision. After years of disputes, reconciliations, and contested figures, Nigeria’s most important revenue institution was, at least on paper, given a cleaner slate.

The approval, contained in a report prepared by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) and presented at the last year November meeting of the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), effectively wiped out 96 percent of NNPC’s dollar-denominated obligations and 88 percent of its naira liabilities accumulated up to December 31, 2024. It resolved long-standing balances arising from crude oil liftings, joint venture royalties, production-sharing contracts, and related arrangements.

Judging it critically, the decision carries both promise and peril, but can be viewed from the perspective of a country desperate to restore confidence in public finance management. It offers an opportunity to reset relationships, clean up accounting records, and move forward under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). Yet, it also exposes deep structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s oil revenue governance, weaknesses that, if left unaddressed, could turn today’s debt relief into tomorrow’s fiscal regret.

Context matters. The debt write-off comes not during a period of revenue abundance, but at a time when Nigeria’s upstream revenue performance is under severe strain. According to the same NUPRC document, the commission missed its approved monthly revenue target for November 2025 by N544.76 billion, collecting only N660.04 billion against a projected N1.204 trillion.

Royalty receipts, the backbone of upstream revenue, tell an even starker story. It is alarming that against an approved monthly royalty projection of N1.144 trillion, only N605.26 billion was collected, leaving a shortfall of N538.92 billion. Cumulatively, by the end of November 2025, the revenue gap stood at N5.65 trillion, with royalty collections alone falling short by N5.63 trillion. These figures underscore how fragile Nigeria’s fiscal position remains, even as trillions of naira in historical obligations are being written off.

To be fair, the debts forgiven were not incurred overnight. They are the product of years of disputed remittances, lacking transparent accounting practices, and overlapping institutional roles, particularly under the pre-PIA regime. As petroleum economist Prof. Wumi Iledare has repeatedly observed, the former Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation combined regulatory, commercial, and operational functions, making revenue reconciliation cumbersome and frequently contested.

That legacy continues to haunt the system, as witnessed with the ongoing dispute between NNPC Ltd and Periscope Consulting, the audit firm engaged by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, over an alleged $42.37 billion under-remittance between 2011 and 2017, which illustrates how unresolved the past remains. Though NNPC insists all revenues were properly accounted for as claimed, Periscope maintains that significant gaps persist, forcing FAAC to mandate yet another reconciliation exercise. This recurring pattern of audits, counterclaims, and stalemates has weakened trust in the federation revenue system and eroded confidence among states that depend on oil proceeds for survival.

Crucially, the debt write-off does not mean NNPC has turned a corner financially. Statutory obligations incurred between January and October 2025 remain on the books, amounting to about $56.8 million and N1.02 trillion. Although part of the dollar component was recovered during the period under review, the accumulation of new liabilities so soon after reconciliation raises uncomfortable questions about whether old habits are being replaced with genuine fiscal discipline.

More troubling still is what NNPC’s own audited financial statements reveal about its internal financial health. Despite recording a profit after tax of N5.4 trillion on revenues of N45.1 trillion in 2024, the company’s inter-company debts ballooned to N30.3 trillion, representing a 70 per cent increase within a single year. This is not debt owed to external creditors but largely obligations between NNPC and its subsidiaries, effectively the company owing itself.

Records show that of 32 subsidiaries, only eight are debt-free, and the rest, particularly the refineries, trading arms, and gas infrastructure units, remain heavily indebted to the parent company. There was a recurring cycle where profitable units subsidise chronically underperforming ones, and accountability steadily erodes because cash that should fund maintenance, expansion, and efficiency improvements is instead trapped in internal receivables.

The refineries offer a stark illustration whereby the Port Harcourt Refining Company alone owed N4.22 trillion in 2024, more than double its 2023 figure, while Kaduna and Warri refineries followed closely, with debts of N2.39 trillion and N2.06 trillion respectively. Despite the repeated failed turnaround maintenance with many years of rehabilitation spending, none have operated sustainably at commercially viable levels. Their continued dependence on financial support from the parent company highlights the cost of postponing difficult restructuring decisions.

And, for this reason, international observers have long warned about these structural weaknesses. One of the critics, the World Bank, has repeatedly flagged NNPC as a major source of revenue leakages. It further noted that the persistent gaps between reported earnings and actual remittances to the Federation Account. Even after the removal of petrol subsidies, the bank observed that NNPC remitted only about 50 per cent of the revenue gains, using the rest to offset past arrears. Such practices, while perhaps defensible in internal cash management terms, undermine fiscal transparency and weaken Nigeria’s macroeconomic credibility.

This is why the central issue is not the debt write-off itself, but what follows it because debt forgiveness is not reform. Without firm safeguards, it risks entrenching the very behaviours that created the problem in the first place. As Prof. Omowumi Iledare has warned, the scale and pace of the inter-company debt build-up represent a governance test rather than a mere accounting anomaly. Allowing subsidiaries to operate indefinitely without settling obligations is incompatible with the idea of a commercially driven national oil company.

The fact remains that if NNPC wants to function as a true commercial holding company under the PIA, it must enforce strict settlement timelines, restructure or divest non-viable subsidiaries, while clearly separating legacy debts from new obligations. With this, it holds subsidiary leadership accountable for cash flow and profitability. Independent, real-time audits and transparent reporting must become routine features of governance, not emergency responses triggered by controversy.

There is also a broader national implication. At a time when Nigerians are being asked to accept higher taxes, reduced subsidies, and fiscal tightening, large-scale debt write-offs without visible accountability risk undermining the legitimacy of the entire revenue system. Citizens cannot be expected to bear heavier burdens while systemic inefficiencies in the country’s most strategic sector persist.

Of a truth, the cancellation of NNPC’s legacy debts could mark a turning point in Nigeria’s fiscal governance, but only if it is not treated as its conclusion but the beginning of reform.

If discipline, transparency, and commercial accountability follow, the decision may yet help reposition NNPC as a profitable, credible, and PIA-compliant institution. If not, today’s clean slate will simply defer the reckoning until the next reconciliation, the next audit dispute, and the next fiscal crisis.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]