On 8 May 2025, the Nigerian Senate passed the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill, a transformative piece of legislation aimed at modernising the country’s revenue administration system. The Bill proposes the creation of three key institutions: the Joint Revenue Board, the Tax Appeal Tribunal, and notably, the Office of the Tax Ombud.
According to its stated objectives, the Bill seeks to:
- Create a unified legal and institutional framework for revenue administration;
- Promote taxpayer rights and fair treatment;
- Establish efficient mechanisms for dispute resolution.
In particular, Section 40 of the Bill empowers the Office of the Tax Ombud to:
- Serve as an independent arbiter for resolving tax-related complaints;
- Review conduct of tax officials and authorities;
- Employ mediation and conciliation in dispute resolution;
Investigate taxpayer grievances and inspect premises linked to tax authorities.
These are bold and commendable provisions. However, the framework takes a somewhat restrictive turn with a provision prohibiting anonymous complaints. This provision risks weakening the impact of the Tax Ombud before it even begins its work.
Why Anonymous Complaints Should Be Filtered, Not Forbidden
A functional redress mechanism must be as inclusive as it is robust. Anonymous reporting when managed appropriately can be an effective tool in surfacing issues that may otherwise remain hidden, particularly in environments where fear of retaliation, distrust, or institutional opacity are prevalent.
In our experience advising clients on tax compliance and regulatory interface, we often encounter scenarios where whistleblowers or aggrieved taxpayers are reluctant to raise concerns openly. By excluding such voices, the Ombud may inadvertently shut the door on precisely the types of issues it was designed to investigate.
Rather than prohibit anonymous complaints outright, the better posture would be to filter and assess them using structured tools. This approach is not new. Several forward looking jurisdictions have implemented frameworks that accommodate anonymous tips while preserving institutional credibility:
- South Africa’s Tax Ombud permits anonymous complaints with substantiating evidence.
- The UK’s HMRC provides a secure online channel for anonymous fraud reports.
- Canada allows confidential disclosures under the protection of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson.
Building a Trustworthy and Technologically Enabled Ombud System
If the goal is to build public trust and ensure credible dispute resolution, then the Tax Ombud must be equipped to triage and manage anonymous complaints, not discard them by default. Nigeria can leverage technology and best practices to this end the Office of the Tax Ombud can accommodate anonymous complaints while maintaining integrity by using dedicated reporting portals with intelligent workflows, assigning unique case reference numbers for follow-up without revealing identity, leveraging AI and data analytics to detect patterns of misconduct, and adopting clear internal policies to filter out vexatious claims.
These mechanisms allow the Ombud to act decisively on serious claims without compromising institutional integrity.
Conclusion: Inclusive Redress, Effective Reform
The establishment of the Tax Ombud is a major step forward for Nigeria’s tax ecosystem. It represents a shift toward fairness, accountability, and structured taxpayer engagement. However, to deliver on its mandate, the Ombud must not be shielded from the very complaints it is meant to resolve.
At Xentia LP, our advisory work at the intersection of tax, regulatory reform, and institutional design has shown that inclusive structures are often the most resilient. A prohibition on anonymous complaints may seem procedurally neat, but it risks excluding critical disclosures and compromising the Ombud’s legitimacy.
The solution is simple but powerful: filter, don’t forbid. A reformed tax system must be able to hear from all corners even when the speaker must remain unnamed.
