The Nigerian National Assembly’s recent public hearing on a proposed amendment of the Customs, Excise Tariffs, etc. (Consolidation) Act (CETA) has brought to the fore, once again, the need for proper alignment of government arms and agencies.
The session held by the Senate Joint Committee on Finance, Customs and Excise held on Thursday, November 27th, 2025 sort inputs from various stakeholders based on proposals to increase the current fixed N10 per litre excise duty.
While concerns about public health and revenue mobilization are legitimate, the timing and framing of this legislative effort raise important questions about duplication, coordination, and the balance of powers within the federal structure.
The Federal Government is currently implementing a comprehensive, phased tax reform agenda through the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee. This ongoing process aims to simplify Nigeria’s complex tax architecture, reduce overlapping mandates, broaden the tax base, improve enforcement, and ensure private-sector-friendly policy coherence. The reform work being done by the committee touches on taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages, non-alcoholic drinks and others.
However, the senate committee seemed to have singled out Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) and is working on introducing or expanding a tax on this class of products outside the unified framework that the executive has put in place. This, obviously, risks undermining the very goals the reform committee was set up to achieve.
By holding a special hearing on Sweetened beverages, the National Assembly is proceeding on a path that seems to ignore the work already done by the executive through the Taiwo Oyedele-led Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee. This move is indeed fraught with dangers, some of which are identified below. For instance, if the legislature proceeds in isolation, it could create, among others.
- A parallel tax policy pipelines that contradict or pre-empt executive-driven reforms
- Regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and investors
- Administrative burdens for revenue agencies forced to reconcile conflicting mandates
- A distorted reform timeline, where fragmented tax changes appear faster than the broader strategic overhaul
Rather than strengthening fiscal policy, such fragmentation may worsen the inconsistencies the reform committee is attempting to eliminate across the economy. The issue of double or diverse taxation is a very common issue that businesses are grappling with in Nigeria.
While the legislature has the constitutional right to initiate and amend tax laws, Nigeria’s current economic landscape requires alignment, not competition, between branches of government. This is why the timing and approach of the assembly leaves a lot to be desired. When the National Assembly moves aggressively on tax policy, while the Executive is already engaged in structured reform, the result can be perceived as institutional overreach or confusion.
The Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof Ali Pate, civil society organisations (CSOs), including Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and other stakeholders working in public health, rallied the Senate for this session also seemed to be wilfully ignorant of government tax reforms.
It is, therefore, commendable to see that this proposed amendment of the CETA by the National Assembly met with some resistance from industry experts, many of whom described it as a duplication of ongoing Federal Government tax reforms.
A deeper consideration of the matter shows that the assembly’s move could inadvertently pitch the Legislature against the Executive in several ways:
Firstly, there could be Policy turf conflict, whereby lawmakers may pre-empt or sidestep the executive’s coordinated reform agenda.
Secondly, there could be messaging clash. By this, the public narratives about tax direction—especially on consumer goods could become inconsistent. This could easily undermine investor confidence and erode public trust.
Thirdly, implementation tension might arise as agencies under the Executive (FIRS, Customs, Health Ministry, etc.) may struggle to operationalise new levies that were not harmonized with their strategic frameworks.
Fourthly, there could be economic disruption, whereby a sudden or unpredictable tax change can disrupt business planning, affect jobs in the manufacturing sector, and create backlash that each arm of government might blame the other for.
This was a point the Organised Private Sector of Nigeria (OPSN) voiced concern about, describing the proposed amendment as “shocking and discriminatory”, especially in its singling out of the beverage industry for punitive excise increases.
In conclusion, Nigeria needs well-designed taxes that promote health, encourage investment, and grow revenue sustainably. A tax on sweetened beverages can be part of that strategy—but only if it fits into an integrated, evidence-based, nationwide fiscal blueprint.
The Executive’s ongoing reforms provide a structured platform for making such decisions. The National Assembly’s current move, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, risks duplicating efforts and creating avoidable friction at a time when alignment is crucial. The more prudent path is for the Legislature and Executive to work in sync:
- Allow the tax reform committee to complete its unified framework.
- Incorporate public health levies, including SSB taxes, into that broader plan.
- Ensure that all fiscal decisions follow a coordinated, transparent, and evidence-driven process.
Nigeria, today, needs a clear economic recovery plan. This must be based on a clear, stable, and predictable policy direction. All arms of government share responsibility for ensuring that tax reforms strengthen the nation’s fiscal architecture.
Prof. Godfrey Omojefe, the President of the Chartered Institute of Financial and Investment Analysts of Nigeria (CIFIAN) is a leading voice in sugar-sweetened beverages and non-alcoholic drinks taxation issues.
