Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has summoned the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, to explain why the implementation of a proposed expatriates taxation policy should not be halted.
The order followed an ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff’s counsel, Patrick Peter.
Justice Ekwo directed that the motion be served on the minister and AGF within three days and scheduled the hearing for January 16, 2024.
The plaintiff, who named the Interior Minister and the AGF as defendants, is seeking an interim injunction to prevent the implementation of the new taxation framework, called the “Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL)” until the substantive case is resolved.
According to an affidavit filed by the plaintiff’s Programme Implementation Coordinator, the Federal Government unveiled the EEL on February 27, 2024.
Under this policy, companies employing expatriates would be required to pay an annual tax of $15,000 (N23 million) for directors and $10,000 (N16 million) for non-directors.
READ ALSO: Court remands bandits linked to kingpin Turji
The policy also prescribes penalties for non-compliance, including five years of imprisonment and/or ann N1 million fine for inaccurate reporting.
Corporate entities could face fines of N3 million for failing to file or renew EEL documentation or for providing false information.
The plaintiff argued that the EEL is detrimental to Nigeria’s economic growth and violates constitutional provisions.
It noted that taxation matters require collaboration between the executive and legislative arms of government, as outlined in Section 59 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The plaintiff further alleged that despite earlier suspending the policy to allow consultations with stakeholders like NACCIMA, the minister is now set to enforce the EEL fully.
If implemented, the group claims, the policy would harm the economy and undermine the nation’s financial stability.
Justice Ekwo directed the defendants to justify why the court should not grant the plaintiff’s request for an injunction.
The matter was adjourned to January 16, 2024, for further proceedings.
