Akakan Umoh
The Center for Human Rights and Accountability Network (CHRAN) has rejected the proposed Akwa Ibom State Taxes and Levies Bill, (Property Tax Bill) 2025, describing it as draconian, anti-people, oppressive, monstrous and obnoxious.
The Bill now before Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly for deliberations and enactment into law is part of the controversial Nigeria Tax Law yet to be implemented by the Federal Government.
The CHRAN Director, Otuekong Franklyn Isong stated this in his paper presented at the public hearing in Uyo on Wednesday on the title: “ Bill for a Law to Harmonize and Consolidate the Legal Frameworks Relating to Taxes in Akwa Ibom State and for Other Matters connected therewith,’’,
Recalling that a similar Bill was presented to the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly in 2016, and was out rightly rejected by the people of the state, the Center stated that the provisions of the Bill seek to exacerbate poverty and further impoverish the already deprived citizens of Akwa Ibom State.
Also read
- CHRAN Decries Akwa Ibom LG Councils as Poverty Centres
- CHRAN Hails EMOIMEE for Executing 35 Projects in Akwa Ibom
- CHRAN Exposes alleged Plots to Cause Unrest in COE
The Bill has 46 Sections and 1 Schedule. The Bill is divided into 4 functional Parts. Part I makes provision for the Harmonised Taxes And Levies and the Objectives of the Bill. Part II makes provision for Property Tax. Part III makes provision for Taxes on Lottery, Betting, Casino And Other Gaming Activities. Part IV makes provision for Miscellaneous Provisions. The Bill seeks to harmonise various taxes and levies in Akwa Ibom state.
According to the organization, ‘‘In sections 16 and 19 of the Bill, the CHRAN notes that the Bill seeks to make tenancy life become a life of hardship and misery as any tax(es) imposed on Real Property owners and landlords will be transferred to the tenants in the state.
‘‘In section 21(2) of the Bill, the Center notes that the Bill seeks to promote absentee landlords by transferring the liability of the landlords to the occupier(s) of the property without even masking to be anti-people.’’
CHRAN observed that ”the Bill does not distinguish between houses in the urban cities and houses in the rural communities. Even houses occupied by the poorest of the poor in the society including occupants of mud houses will be taxed in line with sections 16 and 19 of the Bill. This completely negates the campaign mantra of the ARISE Agenda which portrays the Executive Governor of Akwa Ibom State, His Excellency, Pastor Umo Eno to be a friend and a lover of the poor in the society.”
It also observed that ”the Items so listed in the Schedule to the Bill have strangulating characteristics that will shutdown private sector economy in Akwa Ibom State. The Center notes that the Bill does not allow citizens the ambience to manoeuvre. The Bill is very strict and only interested in collecting revenue for the governments without any ambience for reliefs in favour of the citizens.”
Describing Akwa Ibom State as a civil service state with little or no functional state-owned industries and factories, CHRAN pointed out that ‘‘the private sector in Akwa Ibom State hardly survives due to epileptic electricity power supply, lack of water supply from Akwa Ibom Water Company and lack of other supporting public infrastructural amenities to create enabling environment for private businesses to thrive in the state.
‘‘Few surviving private businesses in Akwa Ibom state have resorted to alternative source of energy such as generating sets powered at higher cost of fuel and diesel.”
Certain terms, CHRAN observed, invented by the Bill are dangerously calculated to emasculate Akwa Ibom citizens and create dubious ambiguity.
Citing the word “ENFORCEMENT” as used in the context of section 28(2) of the Bill capable of many dubious interpretations including meaning seizures of people’s property, the body doubted the motive of the word “ENFORCEMENT” used in section 28(2) of the Bill, there is no definition of the word “ENFORCEMENT” in the Interpretation section (section 30) of the Bill.
The Center noted that ‘‘giving that the word ENFORCEMENT is deployed under section 28 of the Bill that deals with default in payment, it could only have been invented to cause destruction of lives of the poor in the Akwa Ibom state.
The CHRAN cited section 28(1) of the Bill stipulating Default in Payment to the extent that “where a person who has received a Property Tax Demand Notice fails to pay the amount within the period specified in the notice, the Charge payable will be increased by the following percentage: between 45 and 75 days – 25%; between 76 and 105 days – 50% and between 106 and 135 days – 100%.”
‘‘In effect, if one’s assessment is N100,000.00 and one default in payment, when it is 135 days, one will now pay N200,000.00 and if payment is not made after 135 days, the property on which the Property Tax is payable shall be liable to ENFORCEMENT under the provisions of this Part of the Bill by the Akwa Ibom Internal Revenue Service or its appointed agents until all outstanding taxes, penalties and administrative charges are paid.’’
The CHRAN reasoned that ‘‘the Bill is in violation of Section 43 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which guarantees every citizen of Nigeria the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria, as well as Article 14 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 (Banjul Charter); and Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 which Nigeria is a signatory to.
‘‘The CHRAN notes that in other climes, citizens’ right to ownership of property is recognised and protected under several human rights instruments,’’ it argued.
Putting up the aversion for the bill, CHRAN called on the members of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly that prides itself as the people’s assembly, to rise in support of the citizens, include their names in the annals of history by standing down further consideration of the Bill.
