Supremacy

There is no doubt that both the Value Added Tax Act and the Sales Tax Law of Lagos State provide for the collection of tax from the customer on consumable items stated in the schedules of the two laws. The rates and goods upon which charges are made under both laws are similar. It follows naturally that there is unhealthy competition between the two laws, thus throwing the consumer and collection agents into confusion. This is not the purpose of governance. Be that as it may, the law does not leave us without a remedy. By Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), if any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. I shall limit myself to the issue before this Court. We are neither asked to determine on the validity of Value Added Tax Act nor the Sales Tax laws of Lagos State. The issue for determination is whether the Value Added Tax Act has covered the field such that the Lagos State Sales Tax Law remains in insignificance.

My lords, permit me to reiterate that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria of 1999, as amended, had by Section one, made provision to emphasize or assert its supremacy. By that provision, any law/statute or provisions thereof that runs riot and violent to the provisions of the Constitution or is in conflict with the constitutional provision is null and void to the extent of inconsistency. SeeA.G. Ondo State vs AG of the Federation and Ors (2002)9 NWLR (pt 772) 226.

Lastly, let me make it clear that the provisions of the Electoral Act are superior to any letter or directive of the Independent National Electoral Commission. That superiority is clearly stated in Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) as follows:-
"An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or direction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election."