The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, to appear before it on January 16, 2025, to defend the proposed Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL). The summons comes amid growing opposition to the levy, which has been described as burdensome and detrimental to Nigeria’s economic growth.
Justice Inyang Ekwo issued the order on Thursday following an ex parte motion filed by Patrick Peter, counsel to the Incorporated Trustees of New Kosol Welfare Initiative. The court mandated that the Minister and the AGF be served the motion within three days of the ruling.
The plaintiffs are seeking an interim injunction to halt the implementation of the EEL until the substantive suit is determined. The group argued that the levy, announced in February 2024, would place excessive financial strain on companies employing expatriates, with proposed fees of $15,000 (approximately ₦23 million) annually for expatriates at the director level and $10,000 (₦16 million) for non-director roles.
Raphael Ezeh, the Programme Implementation Coordinator for the plaintiffs, described the policy as “anti-people,” citing its potential to stifle economic growth and impose undue penalties on businesses.
The policy includes steep fines and penalties for non-compliance, such as a five-year prison sentence or a ₦1 million fine for incomplete or inaccurate reporting, and ₦3 million for late registration, submission of false information, or failure to renew the levy before expiry.
Ezeh contended that taxation requires collaboration between the executive and legislative arms of government under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), stressing that the executive alone lacks the authority to impose such levies.
The Federal Ministry of Interior had earlier suspended the EEL’s implementation in 2024 to allow consultations with stakeholders, including the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA). However, the levy remains contentious, with critics labeling it a potential chokehold on businesses.
The case has been adjourned to January 16, 2025, for further hearing, as the court awaits the defendants’ justification for the policy.