The debate surrounding the bank’s recent decision has raised concerns within the House of Representatives, thus reigniting the debate on the interpretation and application of the Cybercrime Law. Indeed, some members of the House have expressed concern about possible public misunderstanding and a potential violation of existing law.
It is clear from the discussions in the meeting that the tax introduced by the bank goes against the specific criteria set out in section 44(2a) of the Act, which clearly defines who should bear such liability. tax.
Following a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Kingsley Chinda, the House strongly requested the withdrawal of the bank’s first circular regarding this tax, and demanded the issuance of a new circular in accordance with the provisions of the Act .
Kingsley Chinda pointed out that under section 44(2a) of the Cybercrime Act, entities such as mobile and telecommunications operators, internet service providers, banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and exchanges are required to pay specific fees.
He said the recent communication from the Central Bank of Nigeria had sparked national concerns, suggesting that the tax would be borne by Nigerians, even as they are already facing rising fuel prices. and other challenges.
This case illustrates once again the importance of the correct application and interpretation of the laws in force, and underlines the need for clear communication on the part of the authorities to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.
Leave a Reply