This is how to finance a budget of the country, at least from one or to the remaining years of the Government of the day. The Executive design the fiscal policies, attach them to the annual budget and present them to the National Assembly to put into law – fiscal law. It is then the duty of the National Assembly to address the genuine areas of concern in the bill for rectification. Nevertheless, a Government must raise tax in one form or the other to finance the country.

The general discord or argument in the current Tinubu such fiscal measures, I am mainly to talk about here, is that a section of the country notably the far North (NW/NE) felt the fiscal measures removed the imbalance in the revenue sharing formula they have been enjoying over the years over the rest of the country.

Over the years, they share more money from the different federal funds allocation than what they derive from their domain, far over those States that drive the bulk of the fund. That this imbalance must not be addressed by anyone. Should Nigeria be according to the dictate of the far North (NW/NE) or they should take from national policies like the rest of the country?

In effect, Tinubu shot himself in the foot by carrying out first the unnecessary devaluation of the Naira and subsidy removal, which he ought to have been left as the last resort if there were any needs.

With these types of fiscal measures taken first; the negative economic effects and hardship in the country today would not have occurred. The Naira would have retained its foreign exchange rate/value and purchasing power as at 29 May 2023 when Tinubu took over the Government. There could not have been demand for extraordinary high rate of minimum wage nor the accompany runaway high inflation. All of which are based on the resulting valueless mere quantity of money.

Nevertheless, northern States must no longer expect to eat their cake and have it. They cannot be destroying local economy and means of revenue generation in their individual States such as non-sales and consumption of alcohol and others and expect to generate sustainable internal revenue. They should no longer sit back, do nothing and expect things from the South to fall on their laps.

Hence federal revenue allocation should be in proportion of the revenue you derive from your State for the common fund. But the allocation should be subject to a maximum and a minimum any State can get – capped. Here the poor or indolent States who are more from the North are thereby subsidised until they tightened their belts and stop their internal self-made social and economic inhibitions.

How on earth will tax reform by a federal agency, “ end States, LGs frivolous spending” ?

Whatever the merits of the tax reforms as encapsulated in the bills before the NASS, it is becoming more obvious that the premise on which the bills are situated is quite shaky bothering on unconstitutionality and very much contemptuous of the states and LGs. Little wonder there was scant engagement with both tiers of government in drawing up the draft bills .

The most pathetic of all Oyedele’s admissions is that VAT is not provided for in the constitution.The CFRN is clear on taxation not in the Exclusive and Concurrent Lists , and this the subject of ongoing court case between Rivers state vs FG following the judgement of Port Harcourt FHC and subsequent enactment of the Rivers State VAT Act by RSHA. So why is the Chairman of the FG Tax Reforms Committee proceeding with making legislation on VAT at the NASS when such is not part of the law making powers of NASS ?

Even if passed into law , the four bills will definitely be struck down at the courts through the action of the aggrieved states . Oyedele is apparently of the erroneous impression that an Act of parliament is automatically legal and constitutional .