Court Sets December 1 Hearing on Suit Challenging Proposed Expatriates’ Tax Policy
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed December 1 for hearing in a suit challenging the Federal Government’s plan to implement the proposed Expatriates’ Taxation Regime.
The matter, which had earlier been scheduled for hearing, could not proceed due to the ongoing judges’ conference.
Although counsel for both parties, including Paul Atayi for the plaintiff, were present in court, Justice Umar—recently reassigned to handle the case—was absent.
The case, previously before Justice Inyang Ekwo, is now to commence de novo (afresh) before Justice Umar.
The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of New Kosol Welfare Initiative, filed the suit via an ex parte motion marked FHC/ABJ/CD/1780/2024.
The defendants are the Minister of Interior, Mr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, listed as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively.
The plaintiff, represented by a team of lawyers led by Atayi, is seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the new Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL) pending determination of the substantive motion.
In an affidavit, Raphael Ezeh, Programme Implementation Coordinator of the group, deposed that the Federal Government unveiled the EEL policy on February 27, 2024.
According to him, the policy mandates companies employing expatriates to pay annual levies of $15,000 (₦23 million) for directors and $10,000 (₦16 million) for non-directors.
Ezeh further averred that the regime introduces stiff penalties, including five years’ imprisonment and/or a ₦1 million fine for inaccurate reporting.
Additional sanctions include ₦3 million fines for late filing, failure to register expatriates within 30 days, or submission of false information.
He argued that the EEL is an anti-people policy, describing it as a chokehold on economic growth and inconsistent with constitutional provisions on taxation.
Ezeh maintained that under Section 59 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), taxation requires collaboration between the executive and legislature, not unilateral executive action.
The defendants, however, filed preliminary objections urging the court to dismiss the suit.
The Interior Minister, through Mrs. Eva Omotese, argued that the plaintiff lacked locus standi, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Similarly, the AGF, represented by Maimuna Shiru, contended that the suit disclosed no cause of action and should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
In reply, Atayi argued that the case qualifies as public interest litigation, giving the plaintiff the requisite locus standi. He cited precedents, including Saraki v. FRN (2016), to support the court’s jurisdiction.
It will be recalled that the Ministry of Interior had earlier suspended implementation of the EEL to allow for consultations with stakeholders, including NACCIMA.
