The Federal Inland Revenue Service has strongly criticized the Federal Capital Territory Administration for sealing one of its Abuja offices, describing the action as “deliberate misconduct” and “highly unprofessional.”
The tax agency insists it has no outstanding rent obligations to the FCTA.
In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), FIRS Technical Assistant on Broadcast Media, Aderonke Atoyebi, accused the FCTA of unfairly targeting the revenue agency.
“It is highly unprofessional of the Wike-led FCTA to close our office, disrupting staff from performing their duties when we have done nothing wrong, especially during a crucial week as we prepare to sign the Tax Reform Bills. FCTA, you have erred gravely; FIRS owes you nothing,” Atoyebi stated.
The FIRS spokesperson rejected suggestions that the agency was being used as a scapegoat, declaring: “If you are looking for a fall guy, look elsewhere. We should not be your scapegoat when you know full well that the falsehoods you spread in the media and your malicious, illegal actions will harm our operations.”
Atoyebi maintained that FIRS has consistently met its rent obligations for the past 25 years, with all payments up to date through 2023. “We have the evidence,” she emphasized, challenging claims of indebtedness.
The dispute comes at a sensitive time for Nigeria’s tax system, with major reform legislation nearing finalization. Atoyebi warned that such administrative disruptions could undermine public confidence and impede critical fiscal policy implementation.
Economic analysts have expressed concerns that the escalating tension between these federal agencies may negatively impact service delivery and create institutional instability.
The FCTA had sealed the FIRS building on Monday, though the exact location and specific reasons beyond alleged rent defaults remain undisclosed. The development marks a rare public confrontation between two key federal government bodies.
As of press time, the FCTA had not responded to FIRS’s latest claims regarding the rent payments. Observers await further clarification on the legal basis for the office sealing and whether the dispute will be resolved administratively or through legal channels.
