C’River govt, PDP guber candidate trade words over alleged tax probe

The Cross River State government and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Sir Arthur Jarvis Archibong, are embroiled in a public dispute over an alleged tax probe. This development highlights the intricate intersection of tax compliance, political aspirations, and the potential for weaponisation of state apparatus in Nigeria. The controversy underscores the critical importance of transparent and legally compliant tax administration, particularly for individuals seeking public office, against the backdrop of Nigeria's evolving tax landscape, including the recent enactment of the Nigeria Tax Act 2025 and the Electoral Act 2026, which introduce more stringent tax clearance requirements for political candidates.

The political landscape in Nigeria is frequently punctuated by controversies, and the recent exchange between the Cross River State government and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Sir Arthur Jarvis Archibong, over an alleged tax witch-hunt, adds another layer to this complexity. The candidate claims the probe is politically motivated, designed to undermine his gubernatorial ambition, while the state government presumably asserts its legitimate right to enforce tax compliance. This incident is not merely a political spat but raises fundamental legal questions regarding the powers of state tax authorities, the rights of taxpayers, and the integrity of the electoral process in Nigeria.

This article delves into the legal framework governing personal income tax in Nigeria, particularly as it pertains to political aspirants, to shed light on the parameters within which such tax probes must operate. It examines the relevant statutes, the responsibilities of state internal revenue services, and the implications of recent tax reforms and electoral laws on the eligibility of candidates. The objective is to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles at play and the potential challenges and safeguards inherent in such politically charged tax disputes.

The core of the dispute revolves around the legitimacy and motivation behind the tax probe. For legal practitioners, understanding the statutory powers of the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service (CRIRS) and the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals, especially those in the public eye, is paramount. This case serves as a timely reminder of the delicate balance between the state's revenue generation mandate and the imperative to prevent abuse of power, particularly during election cycles.

Taxation in Nigeria operates on a multi-tiered system, with powers distributed among the federal, state, and local governments. Personal Income Tax (PIT) falls primarily under the purview of state governments, administered by their respective State Internal Revenue Services (SIRS), such as the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service (CRIRS). The principal legislation governing personal income tax has historically been the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA), Cap. P8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended). This Act empowers the SIRS to assess and collect taxes from individuals resident within their states, whether they are in paid employment (via Pay-As-You-Earn, PAYE) or are self-employed (via direct assessment).

A crucial aspect of tax compliance for political aspirants in Nigeria is the Tax Clearance Certificate (TCC). Section 85 of the Personal Income Tax Act mandates tax authorities to issue a TCC to taxpayers once it is confirmed that their tax liabilities for the three years immediately preceding the current year of assessment have been fully settled, or that no tax is due. The TCC is a prerequisite for numerous official transactions, including contesting elective offices. The importance of TCCs in the electoral process has been a recurring theme, with bodies like the Joint Tax Board (JTB) consistently advocating for their strict enforcement to ensure that those aspiring to manage public funds have themselves contributed to the public purse.

Significantly, the legal landscape has undergone recent reforms. The Personal Income Tax Act (PITA) has been repealed and consolidated into the new Nigeria Tax Act 2025, which took effect from January 1, 2026. Concurrently, the Electoral Act 2026 has introduced more stringent tax clearance requirements for political candidates. Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2026 now hard-links a candidate's National Identification Number (NIN) and their company's Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Registration Number (RC Number) as universal Tax Identification Numbers (TINs), enabling automated verification of TCCs through the Nigeria Revenue Service's (NRS) Integrated Tax Compliance Portal (ITCP). These reforms aim to enhance transparency and combat the historical issue of opaque or forged TCCs, making tax compliance a non-negotiable aspect of political eligibility.

The alleged tax probe against Sir Arthur Jarvis Archibong must be evaluated within the ambit of the powers granted to the Cross River State Internal Revenue Service (CRIRS) under the extant tax laws. The CRIRS, like other SIRS, is empowered to assess and collect personal income tax from all residents of the state, including self-employed individuals, and to enforce compliance. This power includes conducting audits and investigations where there is suspicion of tax fraud or non-compliance. However, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with due process, fairness, and the rule of law.

The allegation of a "witch-hunt" implies an abuse of these statutory powers for political ends. While tax authorities have a legitimate mandate to ensure all taxable persons fulfill their obligations, using tax probes to target political opponents without genuine cause would constitute an arbitrary exercise of power. Such actions could be challenged on grounds of procedural impropriety, bad faith, or a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to fair hearing and non-discrimination. The onus would be on the aggrieved party to demonstrate that the probe is indeed politically motivated and lacks a substantive legal basis.

The new Nigeria Tax Act 2025 and the Electoral Act 2026 have significantly altered the landscape for political aspirants. The Electoral Act 2026's requirement for a verified Tax Clearance Certificate, now digitally linked to NIN and RC numbers, means that candidates can no longer rely on historically opaque methods of obtaining TCCs. This shift towards data-verified evidence of tax compliance aims to ensure that only fiscally responsible individuals can aspire to public office. Therefore, any candidate, including Sir Arthur Jarvis Archibong, must demonstrate genuine compliance with tax laws for the preceding three years to avoid disqualification.

Taxpayers' rights are enshrined in the tax laws, allowing individuals to object to assessments and appeal decisions of the tax authorities to the Tax Appeal Tribunal and, subsequently, to the regular courts. The new tax reforms also introduced a Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanism, allowing citizens to lodge complaints free of charge, with resolutions provided within 7–14 days, aiming to streamline the resolution of tax-related grievances. This mechanism provides an avenue for individuals like Archibong to challenge assessments they deem unfair or politically motivated. However, the effectiveness of such mechanisms in politically charged environments remains a subject of scrutiny.

Furthermore, there have been ongoing debates and calls for probes into the new tax laws themselves, with civil society organisations and political figures raising concerns about alleged alterations to the gazetted versions of the laws after legislative passage. This broader controversy surrounding the integrity of the tax reform process adds another layer of complexity to any tax enforcement action, particularly when directed at political opponents. It underscores the need for absolute transparency and adherence to constitutional procedures in both law-making and law enforcement.

The dispute between the Cross River State government and the PDP governorship candidate over an alleged tax probe serves as a potent illustration of the delicate balance between legitimate tax enforcement and the potential for political manipulation of state powers. For legal practitioners, this case highlights the imperative of advising clients, especially political aspirants, on meticulous tax compliance, given the increasingly stringent requirements under the new Nigeria Tax Act 2025 and the Electoral Act 2026. The automated verification of Tax Clearance Certificates through linked NINs and RC numbers means that historical shortcuts or ambiguities in tax declarations are no longer viable.

Practitioners must be prepared to scrutinise the procedural fairness and substantive legality of any tax assessment or probe, particularly when their clients perceive political motivations. Leveraging the available dispute resolution mechanisms, including objections to assessments and appeals to the Tax Appeal Tribunal, is crucial. Moreover, the ongoing national conversation around the integrity of the new tax laws themselves suggests that any tax enforcement action, especially against high-profile individuals, will face heightened public and legal scrutiny. Lawyers should therefore advocate for transparency, due process, and accountability from tax authorities to safeguard the rule of law and prevent the weaponisation of tax administration in Nigeria's democratic process.