A wave of public anger has swept across Nigeria following recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) urging the Federal Government to slap new taxes on telecommunications services and petroleum products.
The controversial proposal, detailed in the IMF’s latest Article IV Consultation Report, was pitched as a strategy to boost state revenues and fund social interventions. However, the suggestion has hit a brick wall of fierce resistance from citizens, business leaders, and fiscal experts who warn it could entirely crush the country’s fragile economic recovery.
Government Moves Quickly to Disown the Proposal
Seeking to calm frayed nerves, the Federal Government issued a swift rebuttal clarifying that the IMF’s policy prescriptions are not binding and do not reflect official government policy.
In an official statement, authorities emphasized that any decision regarding tax adjustments must go through established constitutional and legislative channels, heavily guided by local economic realities rather than external pressure. The government assured the public that it is not actively considering the introduction of these levies.
The Economic Argument: “Recovery Time, Not Another Surgery”
Prominent financial stakeholders have stepped forward to explain why additional taxes at this time could backfire drastically. Dele Oye, Chairman of the Alliance for Economic Research and Ethics, labeled the IMF’s recommendations as insensitive to the estimated 140 million Nigerians currently living below the poverty line.
Oye pointed out that the government has already proven its ability to aggressively scale revenue without squeezing struggling households, noting that formal tax collections soared by over 180% in a three-year window, climbing from ₦10.1 trillion in 2022 to ₦28.3 trillion in 2025.
Experts argue that local businesses are already suffocating under a mountain of “hidden taxes,” including:
-
Punitive Interest Rates: Commercial lending rates currently benchmarking above 35%.
-
Energy Crises: A highly unreliable national grid forcing reliance on petrol priced well over ₦1,200 per liter.
-
Operating Volatility: Persistent foreign exchange fluctuations and multi-tiered regulatory levies.
Lagos-based tax attorney Bolu Oyeniyi echoed these concerns, questioning the rationale for fresh levies when the IMF’s own data suggests that simply tightening tax compliance and cutting the cost of governance could yield identical revenue gains. Oyeniyi warned that taxing digital lines would severely damage financial innovation and digital inclusion, while fuel taxes would trigger a dangerous domino effect on food transport costs.
The Ghost of SAP: Historical Skepticism
For many citizens, the IMF’s modern-day interventions carry a dark historical irony. Public sector workers have drawn direct parallels between the current tax proposals and the mid-1980s Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) pushed by the IMF during the military regime of Gen. Ibrahim Babangida.
Historically, SAP’s conditionalities—such as aggressive currency devaluation, public spending cuts, and hasty privatization—led to the firesale of national pride assets like NITEL and Nigeria Airways. Critics argue that listening to the IMF historically landed the country in a structural economic trap, and that repeating those policies on everyday essentials like data and fuel would only worsen modern poverty.
