The Enugu State Government has given reasons for its decision to impose a tax on corpses in mortuaries across the state.

The government said its decision was not driven by the need to generate revenue.

Executive Chairman, Enugu State Internal Revenue Service (ESIRS), Mr Emmanuel Nnamani, made this clarification while reacting to the Mortuary Tax circular addressed to all morticians in the state.

Nnamani said imposing the tax was inline with the state Mortuary Tax Law which had existed for years, adding that it was not new to the state.

He further clarified that the mortuary tax was N40 daily only as against N40,000.

Nnamani stated that it is an indirect tax paid by mortuary owners, not deceased family and it is just N40, not N40,000.

He added that since its introduction, nobody has been denied burying their dead ones, adding that if the corpse stays in the mortuary for 100 days, the mortuary is expected to pay the state a sum of N4,000.

“The tax is not meant to generate revenue but to discourage people from taking their dead ones to the mortuary all the time,” he stressed.

According to the circular, ESIRS, in line with the provisions of Section 34 of the Birth, Deaths and Burials Law Cap 15 Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004, approved the implementation of the Mortuary tax.

The law partly reads, “The sum of N40.00 only is to be paid by owners of a corpse once it was not buried within twenty-four hours. The amount continues to count daily.

“Kindly ensure that owners of corpses make the payments before collection of the corpses for burial and then remit the same to the ESIRS in any commercial bank under the mortuary tax in Enugu State IGR Account.”

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has slammed President Bola Tinubu’s handling of the fuel subsidy crisis, referring to him as “TPain.”

Atiku attributed the current economic challenges facing Nigeria to what he described as the “haphazard and disingenuous approach” of the Tinubu administration to fuel subsidy management.

In his statement posted on X on Thursday, Atiku bemoaned the escalating inflation rate, stating that it is severely impacting the lives of Nigerians.

He lamented that despite the growing hardships, Tinubu appears unfazed by the plight of the citizens.

According to him, the haphazard and disingenuous approach of the current administration to fuel subsidy management has been the reason the nation is witnessing current economic crisis.

He said as things stand, there will be no let up in the escalating inflation rate, which is drowning the material well-being of Nigerian populace.

The former VP said it is even more worrying that Tinubu, whom he referred as “T-pain”, is undisturbed by the hardship in the country.

The nickname ‘TPain’ for Tinubu emerged as a play on the first letter of his name and the name of American rapper and producer T-Pain, sparked by frustrations over the rising cost of living under his administration.

The earliest mention of the term on social media dates back to April 2024.

However, it gained significant traction around September 16, after a user on X used it while discussing the President’s visit to Maiduguri to console flood victims.

The term has gained traction on platforms like X and Instagram.

Some members of the Nigerian Senate have expressed displeasure over alleged moves by state governors to thwart the feasibility for the implementation of the Financial Autonomy granted to the 774 Local Government Councils across the country by the Supreme Court in August this year.

There was hot debate amid confusion on Wednesday in the Senate soon after the sixth item which has to do with Petitions was handled when Senator Tony Nwoye from Labour Party in Anambra North came up with a Point of Order which was sustained by the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio.

Nwoye who came through orders 41 and 51 of the Senate Standing Rules, moved a motion on alleged moves by some state governments to circumvent the implementation of the judgement on LG Autonomy through counter laws from their respective State House of Assembly.

As he was still speaking to his colleagues at the hallowed Chamber, Nwoye ran into confusion over the matter, just as he told the Senate that nine other Senators had co-sponsored the motion.

He specifically alleged that some State Governors are already using their House of Assembly to enact laws that would mandate respective local government councils in their states to remit monies into State/Local Government Joint Accounts ruled against by the Supreme Court.

Immediately he rounded off his presentation containing six prayers for enforcement of the judgement and seconded by Senator Osita Izunaso, APC Imo West Senator Adamu Aliero, PDP Kebbi Central raised a constitutional point of order for stoppage of debate on the motion.

Adamu Aliero who cited section 287 of the 1999 Constitution that makes Supreme Court Judgement enforceable across the country, urged the Senate not to overflog the issue.

Aliero said the Supreme court judgement is enforceable across the country, adding that there is no need for the parliament to be debating anything that has to do with it.

Agreeing with Senator Aliero, Akpabio raised another constitutional issue as he called on the attention of Senators to section 162 sub-section 6 of the 1999 constitution.

The section according to Akpabio, created the State/Local Government Joint Account, which has to be amended in paving the way for full implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement.

Akpabio said what the Senate needs to do is to carry out required amendments of certain provisions of the constitution as far as local governments autonomy is concerned so as to ensure that local councils have their separate accounts.

But before taking a final decision on the motion, the sponsor, Senator Nwoye hurriedly raised order 42 of the Senate Standing rules for personal explanation on the motion the same time, Senator Abdulrahman Summaila Kawu, (NNPP Kano South) raised a similar point of order.

The simultaneous points of Order brought confusion into the session with many senators rushing to the Senate President for a personal consultation, which eventually, made the Senate go to an emergency closed-door session at exactly 12: 46. pm.

Recall that the Supreme Court had in early August this year, barred the 36 governors of the federation from further retaining or utilizing funds that are meant for the 774 Local Government Areas, LGAs, in the country.

The apex court ruled that it was illegal and unconstitutional for governors to continue to receive and seize funds allocated to LGAs in their states.

The Supreme Court had maintained that the “dubious practice” which has gone on for over two decades, was a clear violation of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

In its lead judgement that was delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court held that no House of Assembly of any state has the power to make laws that could, in any manner, interfere with monies meant for the LGAs.

Stressing that the law mandated that LGAs must be governed by democratically elected officials, the Supreme Court ordered that forthwith, funds meant for the LGAs must be directly paid to them from the federation account.