Lagos Lawmaker Insist on Implementing VAT Law Despite Maintain Status Quo Order

Following a restraining order by the Appeal Court in Abuja last Friday, Setonji David, a member of the Lagos State House of Assembly, has stated that the state will proceed with the implementation of its recently enacted VAT Law.

The lawmaker who represents Badagry II Constituency in the House of Representatives claimed this on Monday during an interview on Channels Television’s “Sunrise Daily” breakfast show.

Following the example of Rivers State, which signed its VAT bill into law last month, Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu signed the State VAT Bill into law last Friday, a day after the Lagos State House of Assembly passed it.

ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to join our WhatsApp group and receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!

Read Also: Allow VAT Legal Battle Run Full Course – Ekweremadu Tells National Assembly

On the same day, Lagos petitioned to be added as a respondent with Rivers State in the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s appeal against the Federal High Court of Port Harcourt’s ruling that Rivers should begin collecting VAT.

Justice Haruna Tsammani of the Appeal Court had adjourned to September 16 to hear the petition by Lagos and asked all parties to “maintain status quo”.

The lawmaker said, “In Lagos State, we have always clamoured for true federalism. This is a consumption tax from the people of Lagos and it should be domiciled in Lagos and used for the people of Lagos. There are so many hassles that have to do with federalism that we are practising.

“We generate over 55% of the VAT in Nigeria and we get a paltry sum of 10%. Is that fair for a population of over 24 million. We are happy that the Rivers State Government went to court and the court was very clear that VAT was supposed to be a state affair. We have no choice but to follow suit.”

Stating further he said, “the status quo is that we have enacted the law in Lagos and the law is inexistent and I believe strongly that until another judgement is passed by the Court of Appeal to the extent that what we have done is wrong, the law subsists.”