Examining The Contentious Issues Arising from The Federal High Court (FIRS) Practice Directions


Wednesday, September 15, 2021/ 02:00PM / By Chinedum, Oluwatoba, & Jesutooni of Banwo & Ighodalo / Header Image Credit: Vosslawfirm



On May 31, 2021, the Federal High Court (the "Court") issued a Practice Direction titled the: Federal High Court of Nigeria (Federal Inland Revenue Service) Practice Directions, 2021 (the "Practice Directions") with June 1, 2021, as the effective date. Contemporary debates on the constitutionality, legality, and propriety of some of the provisions of the Practice Directions continue to generate concerns among taxpayers, taxable foreign entities, and the public. The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria is empowered, pursuant to Order 57 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, to make practice directions for the Federal High Court; on matters arising from tax administration/ enforcement as well as matters affecting the Federal Inland Revenue Services ("FIRS"). The Practice Directions are intended to apply to both criminal and civil tax matters that come before the Court with the primary objective of promoting effective case management and expeditious determination of tax related cases before the Court. The Practice Directions also seek to ensure seamless settlement of tax debt or liability between disputing parties, as well as the facilitation of electronic systems for filing, servicing, and conducting proceedings in tax-related matters. This article discusses two critical issues raised by the Practice Directions.


Power of the FIRS to access Taxpayer's records

Order III (2)c of the Practice Directions expressly grants the FIRS powers, pursuant to an ex-parte order, to access taxpayer's books, documents, servers, billing systems, bank accounts, including those stored in a computer; in digital, magnetic, optical and/or electronic form for the purposes of tax assessment, collection, and remittance. From the text of the Practice Directions, it appears that an application for the issuance of ex-parte order(s) is required where a taxpayer has refused to grant access to the FIRS. This provision has generated reactions from the public, particularly operators in the data processing and technology sector.


While this initiative may serve as a recognition of technological innovation and its application to organisational processes and systems, businesses enterprises, corporate organisations and other entities operating in the Nigerian market have raised concerns; about possible data privacy and security breaches which may result from the exercise of the powers afforded the FIRS, in this regard.


Essentially, Nigerian data protection and cybersecurity regime prohibits unauthorised and unlawful intentional access by any person, into the whole or part of the computer system or network of another person or an organisation. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 (the "Cybercrimes Act") criminalises intentional trafficking by any person or organisation, in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without lawful authority, if such trafficking affects public, private and or individual interest within or outside Nigeria.


However, with the provisions of Section 51 of the Finance Act 2020 and Order III (2)c of the Practice Directions, it is unlikely that any technological operation deployed by the FIRS to accessing the computer system or network of a taxpayer, in line with the new regime, can be taggedc"Unlawful Access" under the Cybercrimes Act. More so, under the provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 , issued by the National Information Technology Development Agency ("NITDA"), data processing carried out without the requisite consent of a data subject will nonetheless be regarded as "Lawful Processing"; where the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, or it is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in exercise of official public mandate vested in the data controller. In the circumstance, the FIRS is the data controller.


Notwithstanding the above, it is our considered view that the FIRS, in the exercise of its powers pursuant to the Practice Directions, should strive to ensure that sensitive personal data and corporate/trade secrets of individual and corporate taxpayers alike are not compromised or made vulnerable to public abuse. The FIRS, as a public institution, has an ongoing obligation to comply with the provisions of the Guidelines for the Management of Personal Data by Public Institutions in Nigeria (2020), issued by NITDA, which reinforce international conventions and constitutional provisions prohibiting arbitrary interference with the privacy, family, home or correspondence of any person, or unlawful attacks upon a person's honour and reputation. The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is also constitutionally guaranteed in Nigeria.


Challenge of Tax Assessments by Taxpayers

Order V (3) of the Practice Directions provides that, a taxpayer who intends to challenge a tax assessment issued by the FIRS before the Court, is required to pay half of the assessed amount in an interest-yielding account of the Court, as a condition precedent to entering appearance. Understandably, this provision is intended to discourage tax evasion and frivolous litigation that may undermine the FIRS' tax collection efforts.


However, it is arguable that the blanket and unqualified requirement for every appellant to pay half of the assessed amount in all cases before the Court, is not in tune with applicable statutory specifications and may, ultimately, fetter the right of an aggrieved taxpayer to object and challenge a disputed tax assessment.


The circumstances (described in the subsequent paragraph) where a taxpayer who is challenging a tax assessment may be required to pay part of the disputed tax assessment, have been clearly stated in the Fifth Schedule to the Federal Inland Revenue (Establishment) Act of 20071 ("FIRS Act"). In our opinion, the statutory provisions regarding the circumstances cannot be validly amended by the Practice Directions.2


Specifically, under the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Act, an appellant is only required to pay either half of the tax assessment under appeal or an amount equal to the assessment issued in the preceding year of assessment or any amount considered to be appropriate security for the action, where in the course of hearing, the FIRS has been able to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal hearing the appeal in the first instance that: (i) the appellant/taxpayer has failed to prepare and file the appropriate tax returns required under the relevant tax statute, for the concerned year of assessment; (ii) the appeal is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of court process or; (iii) it is expedient to require the appellant to pay an amount as security for prosecuting the appeal.3


In each of the circumstances described above, the appeal may be adjourned to a later day to allow the appellant pay the appropriate deposit to the FIRS, before continuation of the proceedings or hearing.


4 Based on the forgoing statutory provisions, we believe that payment of half of a disputed tax assessment or any amount of deposit whatsoever, should not be made a condition precedent to filing or entering appearance in an appeal, but should only be conditional upon a specific and satisfactory proof of certain facts by the FIRS, as enumerated under the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Act. We also believe that the payment of deposit out of a disputed tax assessment, is made applicable to a Tribunal hearing a tax appeal in the first instance, in other words, the Tax Appeal Tribunal ("TAT") established under the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Act. Such payment or deposit should ordinarily not apply to appeals from the decisions of the TAT brought before the Court.



Practice Directions are generally administrative regulations, intended to guide the procedure of the Court and litigants seeking to settle their disputes. Whilst the new FIRS-connected Practice Directions appear laudable for its aims of easing the adjudication of tax disputes in Nigeria, it raises concerns among individuals and business organisations about the privacy and security of sensitive personal data and business secrets. It is also viewed by a significant part of the taxpaying public, as erecting monetary barrier against the ability of taxpayers to redress wrongful tax assessments. In a situation where the FIRS issues a taxpayer wrongful assessment, such a taxpayer would be required, under the new regime, to first pay half of such wrongful assessment before attaining the right to be heard by the Court to challenge the assessment. This poses a challenge to taxpayers who would rather deploy capital to their operations, as against depositing it in the account of the Court pending the determination of a tax dispute.


Overall, the Practice Directions remain an extant procedural instrument and apply to all civil and criminal tax disputes brought before the Court. It is hoped that the identified contentious issues will be revisited by the appropriate authorities, in order to achieve a seamless and effective tax administration system that considers and has the buy-in of all stakeholders; in line with the thrust of the National Tax Policy 2017. It is also important that the new statutory powers of the FIRS are exercised cautiously and properly, so as to prevent unending litigation resulting from data privacy and security breaches.

Proshare Nigeria Pvt. Ltd.


Recent Articles By Banwo & Ighodalo

1.         Trademarking "Yoruba": Illegality or Mere Cultural Appropriation? - July 07,2021

2.        Trademark Licensing in Nigeria -  06, 2021

3.        Finance Minister Issues Order Expanding the Goods and Services Exempt from VAT in Nigeria - May 28, 2020

4.        COVID-19 and Commercial Transactions: Some Emerging Legal Issues - March 30, 2020

5.        Patents: The Fitness and Wellness Industry - October 23, 2019

6.        Ownership of Trademarks in Nigeria - October 06, 2019

7.        Companies Operating In Nigeria To Pay 0.005% Net Profit Levy Under The NPTF (Establishment) Act 2018 - September 17, 2019

8.       NAFDAC-Regulated Products Imported Into Nigeria Now To Be Processed On The Nigeria Trade Portal - September 06, 2019

9.        National Identity Management In Nigeria: NIMC and Matters Arising  - Jul 29, 2019

10.   Drilling Rigs Are Not Vessels: Court Of Appeal Pronounces  - Jul 25, 2019

11.     Nigeria: What You Need To Know About The New Minimum Capital Requirement For Insurance  - Jun 03, 2019

12.  National Housing Fund Act 2018: Analysis And Recommendations For Legislative Review  - May 03, 2019





1.       See paragraph 15 (7) of the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Act.

2.      By the provisions of Section 61 of the FIRS Act, the power to make rules and regulations that are necessary or expedient to giving full effect to or for the due administration of the provisions of the FIRS Act, resides in the Board of the FIRS; which exercises the power with the approval of the Minister of Finance. In addition, the FIRS Act with its Schedules, is an enactment of the federal parliament and as such, only the National Assembly can validly amend, add to or subtract from any of its provisions.

3.      See specifically, paragraph 15 (7)(a) of the FIRS Act

4.      See paragraph 15 (7)(b) of the FIRS Act.


Editorial Team


Chinedum Umeche, FCIArb




Oluwatoba Oguntuase

Senior Practice Support Lawyer



Jesutooni Ajiboye

Practice Support Lawyer



The Grey Matter Concept is an initiative of the law firm, Banwo & Ighodalo.


DISCLAIMER: This article is only intended to provide general information on the subject matter and does not by itself create a client/attorney relationship between readers and our Law Firm or serve as legal advice. We are available to provide specialist legal advice on the readers' specific circumstances when they arise.


 Proshare Nigeria Pvt. Ltd.


Related News

1.           How to Fix Nigeria's Broken VAT System

2.          Court of Appeal Orders States to Maintain Status Quo on VAT Administration

3.           State Attorney Generals Sue AGF Over Stamp Duty Administration

4.          Administration of Stamp Duties in Nigeria Under The Finance Act - Part 2

5.           Lagos Assembly Passes VAT, Anti-Open Grazing Bills

6.          Lagos State Government Presents State VAT Bill

7.           FIRS Becomes Desperate Over a Clear Justifiable Matter, Writes NASS for Exclusive Powers

8.          FG vs States VAT War - Cutting Through the Noise

9.          Rivers State Government Orders Implementation of State VAT Law

10.       VAT: Court Dismisses FG's Motion for Stay of Judgment Execution

11.        Governor Wike Directs RSRS to Ensure Full Implementation of the VAT Judgement

12.        Administration of Stamp Duties in Nigeria Under The Finance Act

13.        e-book on Matters Arising from Implementation of Finance Act, 2020

14.        FG Reintroduces VAT on Cooking Gas

15.        What You Should Know About The Rivers State Value-Added Tax Law

16.        The VAT Conversation: Time to Return Collection to States?

17.        VAT: Nigeria Needs to Improve Tax Revenue to GDP - Boniface Chizea

18.       The NASENI Levy - Why Is It Being Pursued at This Time?

19.        The Dividend from Raising the Rate of VAT

20.      AG. Rivers v. FIRS: CITN Will Take an Informed Position After Studying the Court Judgement

Proshare Nigeria Pvt. Ltd.

Proshare Nigeria Pvt. Ltd.


Related News