The dispute between Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, and Peoples Gazette centres on a fundamental question of law and interpretation: does Section 61 of the Nigeria Tax Administration Act empower tax authorities to seize taxpayers’ money or property without a court order?
The accusation made by Peoples Gazette was framed as follows:
“We followed your interview on Arise TV yesterday but found that you goofed and misrepresented the facts in the tax law. Contrary to your claims, Section 61 of the new law empowers the FIRS to seize Nigerians’ money, properties without court order, for not paying taxes.”
Oyedele insists this claim is legally misleading because it ignores the procedural chain that must be exhausted before Section 61 can be triggered.
What Section 61 Provides — and What It Does Not
Section 61 of the Nigeria Tax Administration Act gives the tax authority powers of enforcement once a tax liability has become final and conclusive. On its face, the provision allows the tax authority to recover unpaid taxes through measures that may include distraint over assets, bank account recovery, or appointment of agents.
However, as Oyedele argues, Section 61 does not operate in isolation.
Under Nigeria’s tax framework—unchanged in substance by the new law—several steps must occur before enforcement powers can lawfully arise:
-
Self-Assessment or Assessment
A taxpayer is first entitled to self-assessment. Where the tax authority disagrees, it may issue an additional assessment. -
Right of Objection
The taxpayer has a statutory right to object to that assessment within prescribed timelines. -
Appeal Process
If the objection is rejected, the taxpayer may appeal through the Tax Appeal Tribunal and onward to the regular courts, up to the Supreme Court where applicable. -
Final and Conclusive Tax Debt
Only after these rights are exhausted—or waived by inaction—does the tax liability become final and conclusive.
It is only at this point that Section 61 enforcement powers can be lawfully exercised.
The Core of Oyedele’s Argument
Oyedele’s position, expressed during his interview on ARISE TV, is that the FIRS cannot “just wake up” and seize assets or freeze bank accounts without due process. Enforcement powers are conditional, sequential, and subject to prior procedural safeguards.
His criticism of Peoples Gazette is that the publication relied on a short mid-response excerpt, detached from the question asked and the explanation that immediately preceded it, thereby creating the impression that he denied the existence of enforcement powers altogether.
“That is not what I said,” Oyedele maintains. “What I explained is that enforcement does not arise in a vacuum.”
Is a Court Order Required?
A key source of public confusion is whether enforcement under Section 61 requires a fresh court order.
Legally, Oyedele’s argument is that while enforcement may not require a new court order at the point of execution, it is nonetheless grounded in a process that already embeds judicial oversight through objections and appeals. In effect, the courts are involved before enforcement, not bypassed altogether.
This distinction—between no process and no fresh order at enforcement stage—is the nuance Oyedele says was lost in Peoples Gazette’s reporting.
Why the Distinction Matters
At a time of heightened public anxiety over taxation and state power, Oyedele argues that suggesting tax authorities can arbitrarily seize assets without due process risks inflaming public distrust and misrepresenting the law.
Even if his interpretation were disputed, he contends, responsible journalism would characterise it as “wrong” rather than accusing him of deliberate falsehood.
The controversy underscores how technical tax provisions, when stripped of legal context, can quickly become flashpoints in Nigeria’s already polarised public discourse ovr fiscal reform.
How Asset Seizure for Tax Debts Works in Other Jurisdictions
Across major economies, tax authorities do have powers to seize assets or recover funds from bank accounts. However, those powers are exercised only after a structured, rule-bound process that embeds notice, objections, appeals, and proportionality. What differs is where court involvement sits in the sequence—not whether due process exists.
United States (IRS)
In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has strong enforcement powers, but they are procedural, incremental, and heavily documented.
Section 61 Nigeria Tax Administration Act, FIRS asset seizure powers, Nigeria tax law explained, tax enforcement Nigeria,Process
-
Assessment of Tax – The IRS assesses tax based on returns or audits.
-
Notice and Demand for Payment – The taxpayer receives formal written notice.
-
Right to Dispute – The taxpayer may challenge the assessment administratively or in the U.S. Tax Court.
-
Final Debt – If unpaid and uncontested, the debt becomes legally enforceable.
-
Lien (Legal Claim) – A federal tax lien automatically arises over the taxpayer’s property.
-
Levy (Seizure) – The IRS may levy bank accounts, wages, or seize assets.
Court Order?
A fresh court order is not required at the levy stage, but judicial review opportunities exist before enforcement, and taxpayers can challenge improper levies after the fact.
Key Point
Asset seizure is lawful only after notice, opportunity to contest, and finality of liability.
United Kingdom (HMRC)
In the UK, enforcement powers sit with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
Process
-
Assessment and Demand – HMRC issues a tax assessment and payment demand.
-
Objection and Appeal – Taxpayers can appeal internally and to independent tax tribunals.
-
Final Liability – Once appeals are exhausted or deadlines lapse, the debt crystallises.
-
Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) – HMRC may recover funds directly from bank accounts.
-
Distraint / Enforcement Agents – Property may be seized and sold.
Court Order?
For Direct Recovery of Debts, HMRC does not need a court order, but strict safeguards apply:
-
Minimum debt thresholds
-
Advance notice
-
Funds left for basic living expenses
-
Right of review and appeal
Key Point
No arbitrary seizure—statutory checks precede enforcement.
Canada (CRA)
Canada’s Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operates under a similar model.
Process
-
Assessment and Notice of Assessment
-
Objection Rights – Taxpayers may file formal objections.
-
Appeal to Tax Court
-
Final Debt
-
Garnishment / Seizure – CRA may garnish bank accounts or seize property.
Court Order?
CRA can garnish funds without a court order, but only after statutory notice and appeal windows have passed.
Australia (ATO)
Australia’s Australian Taxation Office (ATO) also combines administrative power with procedural safeguards.
Process
-
Assessment
-
Objection and Review
-
Final Debt
-
Garnishee Notices – Banks or third parties are directed to remit funds.
-
Seizure and Sale of Assets (rare and last resort)
Court Order?
Not required at enforcement stage, but enforcement without prior process would be unlawful.
What Is Common Across Jurisdictions
Despite differences in terminology and sequencing, five principles are consistent:
-
Assessment First
No seizure without a formally assessed tax liability. -
Right to Be Heard
Objection and appeal mechanisms are mandatory. -
Finality Threshold
Enforcement powers arise only after the debt becomes final and conclusive. -
Administrative Enforcement
Fresh court orders are often not required at execution stage—but courts are embedded earlier in the process. -
Proportionality and Safeguards
Minimum thresholds, notices, and hardship protections are standard.
Is Section 61 of Nigeria’s New Tax Law an Exception?
The argument made by Taiwo Oyedele mirrors global practice: tax authorities everywhere have seizure powers, but those powers are not arbitrary. They are activated only after layered due process.
In this context, Nigeria’s Section 61 is not unusual by international standards. What matters—both legally and journalistically—is explaining when enforcement applies, how it is triggered, and what safeguards exist, rather than suggesting that tax authorities can summarily confiscate assets at will.
This distinction is the difference between lawful enforcement and state arbitrariness—and it is precisely the nuance that responsible reporting is expected to convey.