When KPMG - one of the world’s “Big Four” tax authorities identifies “errors, inconsistencies, gaps, and omissions” in a 500-page tax law, they aren’t just giving an opinion. They are performing a technical audit.
Yet, Taiwo Oyedele’s response was not a technical correction, but a psychological deflection. By claiming that KPMG “misunderstood the intent,” he is effectively saying: “It doesn’t matter what the law says; it only matters what I meant when I wrote it.”
Mr. Oyedele spent decades as a Partner at PwC. In that world, he lived by the Literal Rule of Interpretation. He knows better than anyone that in tax law, if it isn’t on the page, it isn’t the law. To now pivot to “policy intent” as a shield against technical criticism is the height of cynical hypocrisy.
- Then (Private Sector): “The law must be followed to the letter to protect the client.”
- Now (Government): “The letter doesn’t matter as much as the noble ‘intent’ of the reform.”
The moment a government says a law is based on “intent” rather than “text,” the Rule of Law dies and the Rule of Men begins.
1. The Death of Predictability
A business cannot plan its 2026 budget based on a “policy conversation”. If Section 27 is ambiguous about capital loss deductions, a company is at the mercy of whichever tax officer is sitting across the desk. This isn’t “simplification”; it is institutionalized uncertainty.
2. The Weaponization of Ambiguity
This is the “real danger”. If the law is judged by “intent”:
- For Friends of the Administration: The “intent” will be interpreted loosely to provide tax breaks and “understandings.”
- For Critics and Opposition: The “intent” will be interpreted strictly, turning every “gap” in the law into a trap for a tax audit or an asset freeze.
>“Today it is called policy. Tomorrow it can be used as a trap.” > Ambiguity is the favorite tool of an autocrat. When the law is vague, the person who interprets it holds the power of life and death over a business.
If KPMG Doesn’t Understand it, Who Does?
If a firm with thousands of tax lawyers and decades of Nigerian experience “missed the context,” then the law has failed the Clarity Test.
Under the Nigerian Constitution, specifically the principles of Section 36 (Fair Hearing) and established judicial precedents, a tax statute must be strictly construed. There is no “equity” in tax. You either owe it because the law clearly says so, or you don’t.
By dismissing KPMG’s technical flags as “preferences for alternative outcomes,” Oyedele is exhibiting a dangerous elitism. He is positioning his committee as the sole custodians of “The Truth.”
- He ignores the Tax Incidence (how the poor pay for the rich’s taxes).
- He ignores the Legislative Process (how “ghost insertions” appeared after the NASS vote).
- He ignores the Market Reality (the November 11 sell-off).
A good tax law is a mirror: you look at it and see exactly what you owe. Oyedele’s law is a shadow: it changes shape depending on where the light is shining and who is holding the lamp.
If we allow “intent” to override “text,” we aren’t building a “Modern Nigeria”; we are building a playground for selective enforcement. If KPMG is “confused”, the rest of us are in deep trouble.