Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has set off a political storm after openly rejecting the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s decision to appoint a private fintech company as a key channel for collecting federal revenues. His criticism didn’t just trend — it sparked a nationwide conversation about transparency, digital finance, and who should control the flow of government money.
What Triggered the Backlash
Atiku’s statement came shortly after the announcement that a
private payments firm had been selected to participate in the collection of
federal funds through the Treasury Single Account (TSA). Instead of applauding
the move as a step toward modernization, Atiku described it as a dangerous
return to a “revenue cartel” culture — one where private intermediaries sit
between citizens and the government’s financial systems.
He argued that placing private hands in the path of revenue
collection is a slippery slope: it risks creating opaque networks, hidden fees,
undue influence, and the possibility of state capture disguised as innovation.
The Concerns Atiku Raised
In his critique, Atiku outlined a series of actions he
believes are necessary:
- A public
investigation into how the company was chosen
- A suspension
of its involvement pending review
- A
comprehensive audit of the entire TSA framework
- Legal
reforms that bar private companies from performing core government
revenue roles
- Stronger
public-sector guardrails to prevent the rise of “proxy monopolies”
Atiku also questioned the timing, criticizing the government
for introducing a controversial financial structure at a moment when citizens
are already grappling with economic hardship and insecurity.
FIRS Fires Back
The Federal Inland Revenue Service quickly responded,
dismissing Atiku’s claims as inaccurate and politically motivated. According to
the agency, the payment platform is only one of several approved channels meant
to make revenue remittance simpler for Nigerians.
They insist the system does not grant any company monopoly power and
that all government funds flow directly into official treasury accounts — not
into private wallets.
FIRS framed the move as a modernization push designed to improve efficiency,
widen access, and reduce friction in digital payments.
Why This Story Blew Up
Atiku’s rejection resonated widely because it sits at the
intersection of politics, fintech, and public trust. Nigeria has been
accelerating its shift into digital finance, and with that shift comes big
questions:
- How
much of government infrastructure should be handled by private firms?
- Where’s
the line between innovation and privatization of state functions?
- Who
keeps the system accountable when digital platforms sit between citizens
and the state?
With tax systems becoming more digitized, people want
assurance that modernization isn’t just creating new power centers behind the
scenes.
The Bigger Picture for Nigerian Cities
Cities across Nigeria depend heavily on efficient,
transparent revenue systems. When the TSA is efficient, funds move faster,
local development projects get financed sooner, and city administrations can
plan confidently. But if the process becomes clouded by privatization concerns
or political conflict, the ripple effect hits everything from infrastructure to
education.
This Atiku-FIRS clash isn’t just a political spat — it’s a
fight over the future architecture of public finance.
On one side: a push for innovation and digitization.
On the other: a warning about creeping privatization of the government’s
financial bloodstream.
What Comes Next
Whether Atiku’s demands lead to a formal review remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: this issue isn’t going away quietly. The calls for transparency may trigger legislative debates, civil society scrutiny, or even a reevaluation of how Nigeria integrates digital platforms into its most sensitive revenue channels.
For now, the spotlight is firmly on the FIRS, the
government’s digital strategy — and the fine line between progress and
privatized power.