President Bola Tinubu has declined assent to the National Identity Management Commission Establishment Bill 2026, citing multiple legal inconsistencies and drafting flaws that he says must be corrected before the legislation can take effect.
The decision was formally communicated to the House of Representatives and read during plenary by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided over Tuesday’s session. Acting under Section 58 subsection 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the president returned the bill to lawmakers for further review.
At the core of Tinubu’s objection is what he described as a series of structural and constitutional defects within the proposed law.
One of the first issues raised concerns the bill’s title, which, according to the president, does not clearly indicate that it seeks to both repeal and reenact the existing legal framework guiding the National Identity Management Commission. This, he noted, creates ambiguity about the legislation’s scope and intent.
He also flagged inconsistencies in the composition of the commission’s board. In Section 4, subsection 2, certain officials were incorrectly described as part-time presidential appointees rather than members serving by virtue of their existing offices. That misclassification, the president argued, undermines the clarity of the governance structure.
Further concerns were raised about the creation of four executive commissioner roles in Section 4, subsection 1b. While the positions are established in the bill, there is no clear provision detailing who appoints them or the qualifications required to occupy such offices.
Tinubu noted that while the bill outlines criteria for the chairperson, it fails to do the same for these key executive roles, leaving a significant governance gap.
A major constitutional issue also emerged around the requirement for Senate confirmation of the chairman and executive commissioners.
The president argued that this provision conflicts with constitutional powers that allow him to appoint heads of certain agencies without legislative approval. Imposing such a requirement, he warned, could improperly limit executive authority.
Additional ambiguities were identified in the role of the Director General. Section 4, subsection 1d, does not clearly define whether the DG is a full board member, serves solely as secretary, or occupies both positions, creating uncertainty about lines of authority within the commission.
Tinubu also criticized the bill’s handling of regulatory powers. By separating regulations and guidelines into distinct sections, the wording suggests that guidelines can be issued only after regulations are enacted, a sequence he believes could restrict the commission’s operational flexibility.
Another point of concern is the introduction of a “supervising authority” within the bill. According to the president, the term is not properly defined or consistently applied, leaving a critical oversight role unclear.
He further described Section 37 as incomplete, noting that, while it attempts to establish the supremacy of the proposed law in cases of conflict, it fails to provide a clear, enforceable legal framework.
Taken together, these issues led the president to conclude that the bill, in its current form, is defective and requires substantial revision.
The rejection does not end the legislative process but resets it. Lawmakers are now expected to address the identified gaps, refine the provisions, and possibly re-present the bill for reconsideration.
The development highlights the critical role of legal precision in lawmaking, particularly for institutions such as the National Identity Management Commission, whose mandate lies at the center of national data management, identity systems, and digital governance.
As Nigeria continues to expand its digital identity infrastructure, the eventual passage of a clear and constitutionally sound framework remains essential. For now, however, the message from the presidency is unambiguous: the bill must be fixed before it can move forward.
