By Ibukun Emiola
Ibadan, Dec. 24, 2025
Recent public discourse has been dominated by concerns over a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between Nigeria’s Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the French tax authorities. Fears have circulated that this agreement could compromise Nigeria’s sovereignty over its sensitive tax data. To separate fact from fiction, we spoke with leading economic and financial experts who provide crucial context, clarify the MoU’s intent, and outline the legitimate safeguards and risks involved.
Understanding the Core of the Agreement: Technical Cooperation, Not Data Surrender
Mr. Tunji Adepeju, a Financial Consultant, identifies the root of public anxiety as a deep-seated distrust in government institutions, rather than the specific clauses of the agreement. He emphasizes that FIRS clarifications are pivotal: the MoU is framed around technical cooperation, knowledge transfer, and capacity building for Nigerian staff.
“This aligns with globally recognized operational frameworks,” Adepeju explains. “Nations routinely engage in such partnerships. France’s tax administration, with decades of sophisticated experience, represents a logical partner for knowledge exchange.” He contextualizes this need by pointing to FIRS’s expanding mandate, which now encompasses the functions of other revenue-collecting agencies. “To manage this increased responsibility effectively, learning from more experienced jurisdictions isn’t just beneficial; it’s necessary for national progress.”
Adepeju further demystifies the process, noting that such agreements undergo rigorous scrutiny. “They pass through inter-ministerial committees and extensive consultations involving legal experts and key stakeholders before approval. The notion of Nigeria surrendering sovereignty under such a scrutinized deal is not grounded in the reality of how these processes work.” He also expressed confidence in the involvement of local fintech giants like the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) in the implementation phase, ensuring indigenous oversight.
A Call for Transparency and Clear Boundaries
Mr. Olugbenga Obatola, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), strikes a more cautious tone, highlighting a fundamental issue: the lack of public access to the full MoU document. “Without the full text, any definitive assessment is challenging,” he states. This point underscores a critical gap in public communication that can fuel speculation.
Obatola eloquently frames the dual-edged nature of such cooperation: “On one hand, tax data is the financial soul of a nation—it reveals our economic strengths, vulnerabilities, and the detailed anatomy of our informal sector. Relying on another country for its management is inherently sensitive. On the other hand, there is immense value in seeking technical help from a stronger partner to build internal capacity.” He insists that cooperation must be strictly bounded to areas like technical assistance, IT infrastructure support, and the exchange of information specifically for taxing cross-border economic activities, as per international norms.
The Global Context and the Imperative for Vigilance
Dr. Alarudeen Aminu, an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Ibadan and Chairman of the Nigerian Economic Society (NES), places the agreement within a standard global practice. “Tax cooperation agreements are common tools for improving collection efficiency and reducing economic distortions,” he notes. He provides a compelling economic rationale for the Franco-Nigerian pact: France has substantial investments in Nigeria, estimated at over €10 billion. Clear tax rules and administrative cooperation benefit both nations by creating a predictable environment for these investments.
“The assisting country will naturally gain an understanding of your tax system’s mechanics,” Aminu clarifies, “but this is a far cry from handing over control. It is a professional familiarity, not ownership.”
However, Aminu delivers the most pointed caution. He warns that the greatest risk may not be in the agreement’s text, but in its execution. “Lapses by local personnel—whether deliberate or inadvertent—could lead to the exposure of sensitive data that undermines national interest.” He calls for robust internal controls, non-negotiable confidentiality protocols, and the active, meaningful involvement of Nigerian institutions and fintech firms at every stage. “The ultimate goal,” he concludes, “must be that at the end of this technical cooperation, Nigeria emerges with enhanced, fully owned, and independently controlled tax systems and data.”
Key Takeaways for the Public
- The MoU’s stated aim is capacity building, not data cession. Public fears should be weighed against the official purpose of technical cooperation.
- Transparency is lacking. Expert concern about the non-publication of the full MoU text is valid and should be addressed by authorities to build trust.
- The economic rationale exists. Cooperation with a major investing partner like France can streamline tax processes for billions in cross-border investment.
- Vigilance is paramount. The real test will be in the implementation. Strong local oversight, legal safeguards, and professional integrity are essential to protect national data sovereignty.
In summary, while experts agree that the MoU itself is a common instrument for development and unlikely to legally compromise sovereignty, they unanimously stress that its success and safety depend on transparent governance, strict operational boundaries, and unwavering Nigerian oversight. The focus should shift from fear of the agreement itself to demanding accountability and excellence in its execution.
Edited by Moses Solanke
Source link
