Tinubu Declines Assent To NIMC Act Repeal Bill Over Discrepancies

President Bola Tinubu, has withheld his assent to the National Identity Management Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2026, citing drafting errors and structural inconsistencies in the proposed legislation.

Tinubu made his decision known in a letter addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and read at plenary by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu who presided over plenary on Tuesday.

The President in accordance with Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) informed the lawmakers of the executive’s observations and returning the bill for further legislative consideration.

Tinubu in the letter noted that the long title does not adequately capture both the repeal and re-enactment of the existing Act.

He also highlighted inconsistencies in Section 4(2), which incorrectly describes institutional representatives on the board as part-time members appointed by the President, whereas they are ex officio members by virtue of their positions.

Tinubu also pointed out that Section 4(1)(b) establishes four executive commission members but fails to specify the appointing authority and does not clearly define the required qualifications and professional experience.

“Section 4(5) of the Bill prescribed the required experience and professional qualifications of the Chairman of Board. However, Section 4(1)(b) which provides for “four Executive Commissioners does not specify the qualifications required for appointment to these key officers, who are given strategic portfolios in the Commission.

“Section 4(3) of the Bill subjects the appointment of the Chairman and Executive Commissioners to the confirmation of the Senate. This conflicts with the provisions of section 171(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which gives the President power to appoint Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments of the Government of the Federation howsoever designated.

“Section 4(3) of the Bill further conflicts with the executive power of the President under section 5 of the Constitution as it would have the policy implication of tying the hands of the President in exercising his constitutional powers. The requirement for confirmation of appointments by the Senate are expressly provided in sections 147(2), 154(1) and 171(4) of the Constitution.

“Furthermore, there is ambiguity in the provisions of section 4(1)(d) as to whether the Director-General of the Commission is a member of the Board or only a Secretary to the Board or both.

“Power to issue guidelines: Separating the provisions on the powers to make regulations under section 35 from the power to issue guidelines under section 36 is unnecessary. Furthermore, the provision under section 36 that: the Commission may issue guidelines for giving full effect to the regulations made under this Bill implies that guidelines can only be issued pursuant to Regulations and not the Act. This is unduly restrictive.

“Supervisory authority: Section 40 of the Bill defined “supervising authority” as: “the Presidency, or any ministry or agency responsible for the Commission.” However, no provision is made under the Bill for such a supervisory authority.

“Incomplete provisions under Section 37: Section 37 of the Bill is incomplete, vague and does not convey any legal meaning. While the marginal note to the section titled: “Priority of the Act’ suggests an intent to provide for the supremacy or priority of the Bill in situations of conflict with other laws.

“The provision of the section did not disclose a clear legislative intent in this regard and is accordingly defective and incapable of legal operation.

“Vague definition of non-existent “supervising authority” The phrase “supervising authority” is defined under section 40 of the Bill to mean: “the Presidency, or any ministry or agency responsible for the Commission.

“There is absolutely no need to define the phrase as it is not used in any of the 41 sections of the Bill apart from the said definition section,” the letter reads.