President Bola Tinubu has officially declined to sign the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) Establishment Bill, 2026.
His decision was based on several legal inconsistencies, drafting errors, and structural flaws found within the proposed law.
The President communicated his stance through a letter read during plenary by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu.
In the correspondence, Tinubu explained that although parts of the bill were drafted correctly, it suffered from structural defects and missed critical provisions needed for clarity and proper implementation.
One major issue raised was the Long Title of the Bill.
The President noted that while it mentioned repealing the current NIMC Act, it failed to state that the law was also being reenacted. He pointed out that legislative standards require this dual purpose to be clearly stated.
Tinubu also highlighted problems regarding the commission’s governing board.
He observed that Section 4(2) incorrectly labeled certain institutional representatives as presidential appointees, even though they are actually ex officio members who serve because of the offices they hold.
Additionally, Section 4(1)(b) mentioned four Executive Commissioners but failed to define who has the authority to appoint them or what qualifications they must have for such important roles.
The President further faulted Section 4(3), which required Senate confirmation for the Chairman and Executive Commissioners.
He argued that this requirement contradicts Sections 171(1) and (2) of the Constitution, which allow the President to appoint heads of extra-ministerial departments without needing legislative approval.
Other concerns included ambiguity regarding the Director-General’s role and the commission’s power to issue guidelines.
Tinubu also criticized the bill for being vague about what constitutes a supervising authority and warned that removing the definition of a Minister creates uncertainty regarding who is responsible for oversight and policy direction.
Finally, the President described Section 37 as legally ineffective because it failed to clearly state that the Act should take precedence over other laws during a conflict.
He urged the House to fix these issues so the bill can meet proper constitutional and legislative standards.
