The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), which has the constitutional mandate to monitor revenue accrual into the Federation Account and disbursement from the Federation Account to the three tiers of government, has gone to the Federal High Court to seek interpretation of the Finance Act, 2021 which was passed on December 31, 2021.
According to the commission, the Finance Act does not have the powers to stop its operations or monitoring activities as enshrined in the constitution.
The case, which was scheduled for hearing on February 1, 2022, was adjourned to March 10, 2022.
The commission in the suit filed against the Attorney General of the Federation; Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) as defendants, is seeking the interpretation of Section 68 of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 as amended by the Finance Act (2021, Section 89 of the Stamp Duties Act as amended by the Finance Act (2021) and Section 4 of the Finance (Control and Management) Act as amended by the Finance Act (2021) respectively.
Specifically, the commission questioned whether the provisions of the amendments to Section 68(1) of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 as contained in the Finance Act 2021 is valid, in the light of the combined effects of the provisions of Section 153, 160, 162 and Paragraph 32 of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, in so far as it purports to subject the RMAFC to the FIRS?
The commission is also seeking to determine whether the provisions of the amendments to Section 68(2) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007 as contained in the Finance Act 2021 is valid, in the light of the combined effect of the provisions of Section 153, 160, 162 and Paragraph 32 of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, in so far as it purports to subject the RMAFC to the FIRS?
Further reliefs sought by the commission is the declaration by the court that the provisions of the amendments to Section 68(1) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007 as contained in the Finance Act 2021 is invalid, unconstitutional, null and void, in so far as it seeks to render all laws including the combined provisions of Section 153, 160, 162 and Paragraph 32 of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, subservient to it by providing that the provisions of the Finance Act prevail over any other law and the provisions of that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Besides, the commission seeks to know the interpretation of the court with regards the provisions of Section 89(3) of the Stamp Duties Act as contained by the Finance Act 2021 which makes it invalid, unconstitutional, null and void, in so far as it is inconsistent with the combined effect of the provisions of Section 153 160, 162 and Paragraph 32 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the powers and functions of the RMAFC in so far as it purports to enable the minister in charge of finance to make regulations in respect of allocation and distribution of the areas of the relevant Stamp Duties and Electronic Money Transfer Levies collected between 2015 and 2019 fiscal years.”
The Finance Bill 2021 was presented to the National Assembly as an Executive Bill to be enacted as part of the legal instrument for the successful implementation of the 2022 budget.
Being a bill regulating the Fiscal Policy of the federal government on the implementation of the 2022 budget, the plaintiff reviewed the same and made presentations to the Joint Committee on Finance; Customs, Excise & Tariff; and Trade & Investment Committee of the National Assembly during the public hearing on the bill in December 2021.
