In the heart of Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory, the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC) sits at the crossroads of governance and public accountability. It is the administrative nerve center overseeing one of the fastest-growing urban regions in West Africa, a melting pot of diverse communities that reflect both the promise and pressures of Nigeria’s democratic experiment. When news broke that AMAC had introduced a radio and television tax on residential houses, the response was swift, loud, and unforgiving. Across neighborhoods and local markets, from Garki to Nyanya, Lugbe to Kubwa, residents voiced their discontent. To many, the new levy represented one tax too many in a city already struggling with multiple layers of fiscal burdens — from electricity and waste collection to housing and land use charges.
Barely weeks after the rollout began, the backlash reached the desk of Hon. Christopher Zakka Maikalangu, the Executive Chairman of AMAC, who found himself caught between the council’s urgent revenue needs and the growing frustration of the people he was elected to serve. By Thursday morning, the Chairman had made his decision: the tax had to go. In a statement personally approved and released through his Senior Special Assistant on Media and Public Affairs, Kingsley Madaki, Maikalangu directed the immediate withdrawal of the radio and television tax on all residential houses within the council area.
The move came as a surprise to many observers of Abuja’s local politics. For weeks, speculation had mounted that AMAC’s new tax drive — which reportedly included levies on residential properties, small businesses, and even informal households — was a precursor to a broader revenue mobilization campaign. Yet, as the public reaction grew increasingly intense, it became clear that something had gone wrong in both the communication and implementation of the policy.
The Revenue Imperative
At the heart of the controversy lay a genuine fiscal challenge. Like most local governments in Nigeria, AMAC has long struggled to raise sufficient internally generated revenue to fund its development agenda. With the federal allocation often inconsistent and barely enough to cover recurrent expenditures, council officials have been under constant pressure to find creative means of raising funds for public services — from road maintenance and sanitation to schools, markets, and healthcare centers.
According to insiders at the council’s revenue department, the idea of introducing a radio and television tax emerged late last year as part of a broader reform aimed at widening the council’s tax base. The logic seemed sound on paper: since most households own radios and televisions, and since the law technically allows local authorities to charge for broadcasting-related levies, the council believed it could generate sustainable revenue without overburdening the formal business community.
However, what started as a revenue innovation quickly morphed into a public relations disaster. Residents accused the council of targeting ordinary citizens already reeling under inflation, fuel price hikes, and stagnant wages. Civil society groups and landlords’ associations began circulating petitions online, calling the tax “unlawful” and “insensitive.” Others questioned the logic of taxing domestic use of radio and television when most Nigerians were already paying for electricity and broadcast services through private providers like DSTV and Startimes.
The People’s Revolt
By early October, the resistance had gained momentum. Social media platforms were filled with videos of residents tearing up AMAC’s tax notices. Community leaders complained of poor consultation, insisting that they had not been informed or engaged before the policy was introduced. Even within the council, some staff members reportedly warned that the timing — coming amid economic hardship — was politically risky.
When Hon. Maikalangu finally spoke, his tone reflected both humility and pragmatism. Addressing journalists at the AMAC headquarters, he admitted that the tax was originally conceived as a revenue mechanism to support developmental projects, but acknowledged that its execution had been poorly timed. “The Radio and Television Tax was introduced with the intention of funding our council’s infrastructural and social development needs — the provision of basic amenities, improvement of our community facilities, and expansion of services that benefit residents,” he said. “However, after listening to the voices of our people, we realized that this policy requires broader engagement and adequate publicity. The council exists to serve, not to burden.”
His words marked a turning point. The directive that followed was unequivocal: effective immediately, all collection of the radio and television tax from residential houses was suspended. Any demand notices that had been issued were to be withdrawn.
From Outcry to Policy Reform
The decision did not stop at suspension. In a move that demonstrated both political foresight and administrative responsibility, Maikalangu ordered a comprehensive review of the tax framework to ensure transparency, fairness, and compliance with existing laws. The review, he explained, would focus on establishing clear distinctions between private residential use and commercial usage of broadcasting devices.
Under the revised framework, the radio and television tax will now apply only to commercial establishments such as hotels, restaurants, bars, and business premises where televisions and radios are used for profit-oriented services. In other words, private households will be exempt, while commercial users — those whose businesses directly benefit from entertainment services — will contribute to the council’s revenue pool.
This distinction, Maikalangu argued, is not only fair but consistent with the principles of local governance. “We must be transparent and just in how we generate revenue,” he stated. “We cannot tax people for what they use privately in their homes. But we can, and must, ensure that commercial users contribute their fair share toward the development of the communities that support their businesses.”
A Lesson in Responsive Governance
For many Abuja residents, Maikalangu’s reversal has become a textbook example of responsive governance — the kind of leadership that listens to citizens and acts decisively when policies go astray. In an era where public trust in government is waning, the AMAC chairman’s decision has drawn praise from civil society organizations, residents’ associations, and media commentators alike.
One of the most vocal supporters of the move has been the Abuja Residents Welfare Forum (ARWF), a coalition of local neighborhood associations. In a statement, the group commended the chairman’s humility and openness to feedback, calling it “a refreshing break from the arrogance of power that often characterizes public office in Nigeria.” The ARWF’s spokesperson, Mrs. Nnenna Okoro, noted that the suspension of the tax “shows that governance is not a monologue — it’s a dialogue between leaders and the led.”
Political analysts also see in Maikalangu’s move a broader message about participatory democracy. Dr. Aliyu Hassan, a public policy scholar at the University of Abuja, described the event as “an important reminder that effective leadership is about flexibility and listening.” According to him, “Too often, local governments in Nigeria make policies in isolation from the people they serve. What AMAC has done here — withdrawing a policy because of public sentiment — may seem small, but it represents a cultural shift toward more accountable governance.”
Rebuilding Trust Through Communication
To prevent future misunderstandings, the AMAC chairman announced that the council would roll out a robust communication and public engagement plan. This includes publishing detailed guidelines on the revised tax policy through the council’s website, verified social media handles, and public town-hall meetings across all wards. The idea, Maikalangu explained, is to ensure that every resident clearly understands what is being taxed, why it is being taxed, and how the revenue will be used.
The move to increase transparency is part of a broader effort to rebuild public confidence. “We want our residents to see where their taxes go,” Maikalangu said. “When people see tangible results — roads repaired, schools improved, waste properly managed — they are more willing to contribute.”
According to his media aide, Kingsley Madaki, the council has already started developing an online portal where residents can access information about AMAC’s projects, budgets, and revenue sources. “The goal,” Madaki explained, “is to create a participatory model of governance where people not only pay taxes but also track the impact of those taxes.”
Balancing Development and Public Sentiment
The broader challenge facing Maikalangu — and indeed most local governments across Nigeria — is how to strike a balance between financial sustainability and public acceptability. As inflation continues to rise and the cost of living skyrockets, introducing new levies can easily provoke anger, even when they are legally justified. Yet without these revenues, councils like AMAC remain dependent on federal allocations, which are both unpredictable and insufficient for grassroots development.
Maikalangu’s handling of the crisis may well serve as a blueprint for navigating this dilemma. By first acknowledging public feedback, then suspending implementation, and finally recalibrating the policy, the chairman demonstrated that fiscal innovation and democratic sensitivity need not be mutually exclusive. It is a model that other local councils across the country might study closely.
The Way Forward
As the dust settles, the real test will lie in execution. Policy reversals, however well-intentioned, can easily lose credibility if not followed by consistent action. For AMAC, this means ensuring that no revenue officers continue to demand the withdrawn tax under false pretenses — a common challenge in Nigeria’s decentralized tax systems. To this end, the chairman has directed strict supervision of all revenue collection teams and warned that any official found violating the directive will face disciplinary action.
Meanwhile, work has begun on the policy review process. The council’s legal and revenue units have been tasked with conducting consultations with stakeholders — including market unions, business owners, and community leaders — to design a tax structure that is equitable, enforceable, and transparent. Once completed, the new policy is expected to be presented to the AMAC Legislative Council for formal ratification before public rollout.
In the interim, the chairman has appealed to residents to continue cooperating with the council in its development efforts. “Our mission is clear — to build an inclusive, fair, and progressive municipality where every citizen feels heard and valued,” he said. “We need the support of our people to make this vision a reality.”
A Quiet Victory for the People
In a country where government policies often descend like unmovable decrees, AMAC’s decision stands out as a quiet victory for civic engagement. It shows that when citizens raise their voices, and when leaders have the humility to listen, governance can indeed work for the people.
For Hon. Christopher Zakka Maikalangu, the episode may have started as a political headache, but it has ended as a defining moment — one that reaffirms his reputation as a people-first administrator. By choosing dialogue over defensiveness, and empathy over enforcement, he has not only defused a crisis but also set a new benchmark for responsive local governance in the Federal Capital Territory.
In a nation weary of top-down decision-making, AMAC’s course correction is a reminder that democracy, even at the municipal level, is most powerful when it listens.
Post a Comment