By Kufre Etuk
I have elected to make a few comments about the Akwa Ibom State Internal Revenue Administration Bill 2025 which is currently before the State House of Assembly, to help the public know the facts about this particular Bill.
Posts by Mr. Leo Leo Umana, an immediate past member of the Board of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Revenue Service (AKIRS) about the Bill has generated some discussions and of course, a feeling of discontentment among some Akwa Ibomites on social media. The posts in their entirety are based on lack of knowledge of the ongoing fiscal and tax reforms and the incidental changes arising therefrom.
I can wagger a bet that Mr. Leo may not have read the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), 2025 where the guidelines for the establishment of the State Internal Revenue Service and functions of the “Management Board of the State Internal Revenue Service”, are stipulated.
In his posts, Mr. Leo claimed that the proposal on the appointment of senatorial district representatives into the State Board in the Bill currently before the House of Assembly is not consistent with what is obtained at the national. He specifically advocates that the Akwa Ibom State Internal Revenue Service Administration Bill should recognise the senatorial district representatives as “Executive Directors”. His argument, as referenced in one of his posts, is based on the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025, (NRS Act).
Leo’s argument is misleading. This is why.
States of the federation do not derive the powers to establish and compose the Board of their Internal Revenue Service from the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, but from a different federal legislation called the Nigeria Revenue Administration Act (NTAA) 2025. The provisions of NRS Act are different from those of NTAA.
It is disappointing that Mr. Leo mixed up his understanding of these two distinct Acts, even more so is his attempt to infer that what is applicable in NRS Act should be adapted in NTAA. These are different legislations.
For clarity, the NRS Establishment Act 2025 repeals the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007, enacts the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act and provides legal, institutional and regulatory framework for the administration of taxes and revenues accruable to the Government of the Federation. On the other hand, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA) 2025 provides the legal framework for assessment, collection of and accounting for revenue accruing to the Federation, Federal, States and Local Governments, and prescribes the composition of the governing boards, powers and functions of States’ and Local Govt Councils’ tax authorities and related matters.
It is correct that the NRS Establishment Act empowers the President to appoint six members representing the six geo-political zones as Executive Directors into the NRS Board. Section 7(1)(ix) expressly calls these zonal representatives “Executive Directors”. That is not the case in NTAA.
Remember, the guidelines for the establishment of the State Internal Revenue Service and the composition of the its Management Board are stipulated in the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), not in the NRS Establishment Act. The provisions of the NTAA are different from that of the NRS Establishment Act.
Let’s move on to a more interesting point.
Members of the public are invited to note that the State Governments derive powers and guidance from Sections 87 – 92 of the NTAA 2025 for:
• the establishment of the State Internal Revenue Service
• composition of the Management Board of the State (Internal Revenue) Service
• establishment and composition of the Technical Committee of the Board
• functions of the Board and the specific roles to be played by members of the Board.
Let’s look at these provisions one-by-one.
On the establishment and composition of the Board, Section 89 (2) states inter alia: “A State Board shall comprise –
(a) the Executive Chairman of the State Service, who shall be the Chairman of the State Board
(b) Directors from within the State Service
(c) a Director from the State Ministry of Finance
(d) three other persons appointed by the State Governor on their personal merit, each representing a senatorial district in the State, who shall possess relevant experience and knowledge in taxation and other related fields; and
(e) Legal Adviser to the State Service, who shall serve as Secretary to the Board.”
Please note the next two provisions as adapted from the Act.
Section 92 establishes the Technical Committee of the Board as follows:
“there shall be a Technical Committee of the State Board, which shall comprise the –
(a) Executive Chairman of the State Board, as Chairman
(b) Directors within the State Service; and
(c) Legal Adviser to the State Service.”
Then Section 92 (1) talks about the function of the Technical Committee.
“The Technical Committee shall:
(a) consider all matters that require professional and technical expertise and make recommendations to the State Board
(b) advise the State Board on all its powers and duties specifically mentioned in Section 91 of this Act
(c) have powers to co-opt additional staff from within the State Service in the discharge of the duties; and
(d) attend to such other matters as may from time to time be referred to it by the State Board.”
The public should take note that there is no section in the NTAA that confers “Executive” status or responsibilities on the senatorial district representatives to be appointed to the Board, implying they are non-executive members of the board. Also, these representatives are not members of the Technical Committee of the Board.
The Act does not expressly assign specific functions to these representatives. Those who are assigned express functions are:
• the Executive Chairman,
• the Legal Adviser who is also the Secretary of the Board, and
• the Technical Committee.
Furthermore, the Act vests in the Executive Chairman the responsibility of the day-to-day administration of the Service. See Section 90(2)(b) The Executive Chairman shall be “responsible for the execution of the policy and the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the State Service.”
The Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice only adapted the provisions of the NTAA 2025, as other States have already done. So far eleven (11) States including Ekiti, Anambra, Kwara, Zamfara, Plateau, Nasarawa, Jigawa, Bayelsa and Abia, have domesticated the Act alongside the Harmonised Taxes and Levies (Approved List of Collection) Act.
It was unthoughtful to assume that the Bills were drafted by Mr. Okon Okon or the AKIRS Board. For anyone who has keenly followed most of the posts on social media made by the Joint Revenue Board, their press releases always states that so and so States have “domesticated” the NTAA and Harmonised Taxes and Levies Act. This implies that States are merely adapting the Act. This is in line with one of the core objectives of the tax reforms which is to ensure coordination, harmonisation and uniformity in revenue administration across the country.
Finally, I feel a bit worried that after Mr. Leo had served as a member of the Board of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Revenue Service Board for eight (8) solid years, he is still not aware that issues on taxation and revenue administration are not determined by States, but the federal government, through the Joint Revenue Board (formerly Joint Tax Board), which is the nation’s apex body responsible for coordination and harmonisation of revenue administration. It is more difficult to accept this as an expression of ignorance than to see it as a mischief.
