A Bill that sought to amend the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Act, to compel the Federal Government to distribute certain taxes and duties collected by the (FIRS) to the states, yesterday threw the House into a rowdy session as it had to be stood down till further notice.
Titled: “A Bill for an act to provide for the distribution and payment to state governments of some taxes and duties collected by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) or other authorities of the Federal Government and other matters connected therewith,” the bill sought to amend Section 163 (b) of the 1999 Constitution by stipulating a time frame for the Federal Government to pay states their share of taxes and duties collected.
The lead debate for the bill by Hon. Moruf Akinderu (ACN, Lagos) had only just started when Hon. Kamil Akinlabi (ACN, Oyo) raised an order to point out that going ahead with the amendment would amount to a breach of the Constitution.
Citing Section 80(1-4) of the 1999 Constitution, he said no bill or any other instrument of the legislature was superior to the provisions of the Constitution, while noting that the monthly allocation from the Federation Account to the three tiers of government had already taken care of what the bill was seeking.
He therefore prayed that the Bill be re-introduced as an amendment to the Constitution instead.
However, his contribution was promptly faulted by the Leader of the Minority, Hon. Femi Gbajabialmila, (ACN Lagos) who expressed surprise at the objection, pointed out that the section quoted by Akinlade could not stand alone, even as he added that Section 163(b) empowers the legislators to go ahead with the amendment.
Gbajabiamila said that there was no conflict between the bill and the constitution, adding that it was necessary to put a time frame that would ensure that states receive taxes and duties collected on their behalf by the Federal Government in a timely manner.
As he was making his contributions, the members began to speak in undertones and at this point, it became apparent that they were going to decide in favour of rejecting the amendment despite efforts by deputy leader of the House, Hon. Leo Ogor, (PDP, Delta State), who had? tried to clarify the intent of the bill.
Ogor noted that: “Section 80, sub-sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are inconsequential to the bill under discussion,” adding: “The Federation Account is distributable, but the Consolidated Revenue Account is different. We should look at it separately. Section 163 of the constitution has given us the full power and we should look at the bill and discuss it again.”