By Babayola M. Toungo
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous democracy, stands at a critical juncture. The recent controversy over the post-passage alteration of the Tax Law has laid bare not merely a procedural lapse, but a profound crisis of leadership accountability. This episode is more than an administrative error; it is a breach that threatens the very foundation of constitutional governance and the social contract between the state and its citizens.
At the heart of any democracy lies a simple, yet powerful, principle: the legitimacy of law derives from the integrity of the process by which it is made. The legislative process – debate, amendment, passage, executive assent, and faithful implementation – serves as the mechanism through which the will of the people is expressed and codified. Any deviation from this process, particularly the insertion of clauses after legislative passage, transforms lawmaking from a public mandate into an act of executive fiat. Such actions strip away the legitimacy of the law, regardless of any supposed policy merits.
In the current Nigerian context, the call for the suspension of the altered Tax Law until all contentious clauses are removed is not an act of obstructionism. Rather, it is a demand for adherence to the rule of law and the preservation of democratic norms. Attempts to reframe this demand as extremism or hostility to reform are dangerously misleading, seeking to conflate respect for legality with resistance to progress.
The response of Nigerian authorities, as exemplified by the Chairman of the Tax Reform Committee’s public intervention, has been to urge implementation first, promising corrections later. This approach exposes a troubling governing ethos – the substitution of explanation for accountability and persuasion for responsibility. It assumes that citizens can be placated with reassurances rather than substantive corrective action, effectively asking them to suspend their constitutional instincts in favor of expediency.
True leadership accountability does not rest on promises. In robust democracies, the discovery of forgery or unauthorized alteration in a statute triggers immediate and decisive action – suspension of implementation, independent investigation, and the temporary stepping aside of implicated officials to safeguard institutional integrity. The Nigerian state, however, has opted for continuity over credibility, prioritizing speed and expedience at the expense of legitimacy and public trust.
Perhaps the most corrosive aspect of this episode is the absence of meaningful consequences. No official has been suspended, no transparent account has been provided, and no institutional safeguards have been activated to prevent recurrence. This vacuum sends a chilling message – that power in Nigeria may circumvent procedure with impunity, and that legality is negotiable when elite interests are threatened.
History is replete with warnings about the dangers of such normalization of impunity. Democracies rarely collapse overnight – they erode gradually as standards are lowered and exceptions become precedents. If forged laws can be implemented today in the name of reform, what is to stop the quiet alteration of electoral guidelines, budgets, or even constitutional amendments tomorrow? Every unpunished breach widens the path for future violations.
Accountability is not a secondary concern; it is the linchpin of democratic governance. It is what converts the exercise of power into legitimate authority and transforms governance into a relationship of trust. True accountability requires leaders to recognize that public office is not a shield from the law, but a position of heightened responsibility to it. Transparency is not a favor but a fundamental duty owed to the republic.
Nigeria’s democratic history is marked by the costly consequences of failing to enforce accountability. From the era of military decrees to manipulations under civilian rule, the pattern of excusing violations for short-term gains has consistently led to the long-term weakening of institutions. In contrast, nations that have fortified their democracies have done so by upholding the primacy of legality, even when it complicates or delays reform.
The insistence by Nigerian citizens that forged clauses be expunged and implementation suspended is not an act of rebellion, but an affirmation of democratic fidelity. It is a refusal to allow illegality to be sanitized through official rhetoric. This steadfastness affirms a core democratic truth: there can be no meaningful reform without trust, and no trust without accountability.
The government now faces a stark choice. It can persist in denial and persuasion, hoping that public outrage will yield to fatigue. Or it can confront the breach head-on – suspend the tainted law, launch a transparent investigation, hold those responsible to account, and recommit to the sanctity of the legislative process. Only the latter path offers hope for restoring confidence in governance and the rule of law.
This moment in Nigeria’s democratic journey will be remembered not for the intricacies of tax policy, but for its revelations about the nature of leadership. A state that treats forgery as a mere inconvenience, rather than a constitutional crisis, signals a deeper fear of accountability than respect for the law. When leaders fear accountability, the very fabric of democracy is at risk.
Ultimately, the demand before Nigeria is not extraordinary. It is the most basic expectation of democratic life – that laws are made lawfully, that violations have consequences, and that leaders are answerable to both the people and the constitution. Anything less is not governance – it is the quiet, dangerous erosion of the republic itself.
