Bola Ahmed Tinubu has declined assent to the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) Establishment Bill, 2026, citing significant legal and drafting concerns in the act.
The decision underscores the administration’s emphasis on legislative precision and constitutional compliance in lawmaking.
Tinubu Withholds Assent to NIMC Act Over Errors
The President communicated his decision to the National Assembly in line with Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
According to the letter read during plenary by Benjamin Okezie Kalu, the bill contained inconsistencies, drafting lapses and structural defects that could hinder its effective implementation.
While acknowledging that parts of the legislation were properly drafted, the President emphasized that critical provisions were either missing or unclear.
Key Legal and Structural Concerns in the NIMC Act
Among the major issues identified was the bill’s “Long Title”, which referenced the repeal of the existing law without clearly stating that it would also reenact it.
The President noted that legislative drafting standards require such dual intent to be explicitly stated for clarity and legal coherence.
He also highlighted discrepancies in provisions relating to the composition and appointment of the commission’s governing board.
For instance, certain institutional representatives were incorrectly classified as presidential appointees, despite being ex officio members.
Concerns Over Appointments and Constitutional Alignment
Further concerns were raised regarding provisions establishing executive commissioners without specifying the appointing authority or qualifications.
The President also faulted sections requiring Senate confirmation for appointments, noting that such provisions conflict with constitutional powers granted to the President.
He explained that the Constitution allows the President to appoint heads of extra-ministerial agencies without legislative confirmation.
Ambiguities in Governance and Regulatory Powers
The bill was also criticised for ambiguity surrounding the role of the Director-General, particularly whether the office holder serves as a board member, secretary, or both.
Additionally, the President questioned the separation of regulatory powers, noting that the structure unnecessarily restricts the commission’s ability to issue guidelines independently.
He described the definition of a “supervising authority” as vague and lacking practical relevance within the legislation.
Legal Clarity and Oversight Spotted in the NIMC Act
Another major concern involved provisions that failed to establish the supremacy of the Act in cases of conflict with other laws.
The President also noted the removal of the definition of “Minister,” warning that its absence creates uncertainty regarding policy direction and oversight responsibilities.
Stakeholders and Legislative Implications
Legal analysts say the decision reflects a commitment to ensuring that legislation aligns with constitutional standards and best drafting practices.
They note that returning the bill provides lawmakers with an opportunity to address identified gaps and strengthen the legal framework guiding identity management in Nigeria.
Conclusion
The decision by Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withhold assent to the NIMC Act highlights the importance of precision in legislative drafting.
As the National Assembly reviews the bill, stakeholders expect revisions that will ensure clarity, constitutional compliance and effective implementation of identity management policies in Nigeria.
