The House of Representatives dismissed the minority caucus’ interim report on tax laws, saying it only served to “compound public misunderstanding on an issue that has been institutionally resolved and overtaken by events.”
The House of Representatives has faulted the decision of its minority caucus to constitute an ad-hoc committee to probe alleged alterations to recently enacted tax laws, describing the move as procedurally improper and lacking institutional authority.
In a statement issued on Sunday, the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi (APC Ekiti), said the green chamber had taken note of media reports indicating that the minority caucus set up the committee on Friday, January 2, 2026, and had reportedly submitted an interim report.
While acknowledging the place of the minority caucus in a parliamentary democracy, Rep. Rotimi stressed that a clear distinction must be drawn between political activities and the formal parliamentary processes of the House.
“The House recognises the legitimate role of the minority caucus within parliamentary democracy and affirms its right to express dissenting opinions, engage in policy advocacy, and raise public concerns.
“However, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between political activities and the formal parliamentary processes of the House,” he said.
According to him, the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (Eleventh Edition) vest the power to constitute an ad-hoc committee exclusively in the House sitting in plenary or in the speaker acting under powers conferred by the Standing Orders.
“No political caucus, whether majority or minority, possesses the procedural authority to establish a committee that carries the status of a parliamentary body,” the statement said.
Rotimi explained that although political caucuses provide platforms for consultation and coordination among members, they do not have institutional standing, investigative authority, oversight jurisdiction, or the power to summon persons or demand official documents.
“Any action taken by a caucus in this regard is therefore non-binding, informal, and without legal or institutional consequence,” he said, adding that any committee constituted outside the provisions of the Standing Orders “lacks institutional recognition.”
He further stated that any interim or final report emanating from such a caucus-led body cannot be laid before the House, received as a parliamentary document, or form part of the official legislative or oversight record of the National Assembly.
Describing the action attributed to the minority caucus as “procedurally improper, inconsistent with parliamentary norms, and liable to set an unwholesome precedent,” Rep. Rotimi warned that it could create unnecessary public confusion, especially as the matter had already been addressed through established parliamentary mechanisms.
He recalled that in December 2025, the House constituted a bipartisan ad-hoc committee following concerns raised by opposition lawmaker Rep. Abdussamad Dasuki over the existence of multiple documents purporting to be official gazettes of the tax legislation.
ALSO READ: Reps minority caucus confirms alterations in gazetted tax laws
The committee, chaired by Rep. Muktar Betara and constituted in line with the Standing Orders, included members from both the ruling and opposition parties and was mandated to examine the allegations.
“That committee was duly constituted by the House and remains in force. It continues to discharge its assignment and will present its report to the House in plenary upon completion of its work,” Rep. Rotimi said.
He added that the National Assembly, acting jointly through both chambers, has since published the official Gazette of the National Assembly and issued Certified True Copies of the enacted tax laws.
“The legislative process has therefore been concluded and given full legal effect,” he said, noting that parliament has formally disowned any unofficial documents in circulation and reiterated that only the gazetted versions and certified copies issued by the legislature constitute authentic legislative instruments.
According to him, the establishment of a parallel caucus-led committee and the circulation of purported interim findings only served to “compound public misunderstanding on an issue that has been institutionally resolved and overtaken by events.”
Rotimi reaffirmed the House’s commitment to transparency, accountability and effective legislative oversight, stressing that such objectives must be pursued strictly within the framework of the Constitution, the Standing Orders and established parliamentary conventions.
“For the avoidance of doubt, only committees constituted by the House in plenary or by the Speaker have parliamentary authority,” he said, advising the public to treat any committee or report not authorised by the House or the Speaker as a political initiative rather than an official action of the green chamber.
