Nigeria
Extension of Expired Visa Amnesty scheme and new online portal
Impact date: 1 August 2025 (CERPAC online transition); 30 September 2025 (amnesty deadline) In July 2025, the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) extended its Expired Visa Amnesty scheme until 30 September 2025, allowing foreign nationals more time to regularize their status without penalty. Additionally, as of 1 August 2025, the NIS launched a new online portal for Combined Expatriate Residence Permit and Aliens Card (CERPAC) applications, ending the acceptance of physical application forms.
Employer implications/action needed Employers with expatriate staff should ensure that all residence and work permits are renewed through the new online system and take advantage of the amnesty period to regularize any overstayed visas before the deadline.
Employer risk Failure to comply with the new processes may result in penalties, processing delays, or disruption of expatriate assignments. Non-compliance could also expose employers to regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage.
Link N/A
General Application and Implementation Directive
Impact date: 19 September 2025 The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) issued the General Application and Implementation Directive (GAID) in March 2025, which provides detailed guidance on the application and interpretation of the Nigeria Data Protection Act. The GAID took effect in September 2025 and formally replaced the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 as a legal instrument for regulation.
Employer implications/action needed The GAID transitions the NDPA's broad legal principles into specific, measurable, day-to-day compliance obligations, reporting requirements, and timelines for data controllers and processors in Nigeria, thereby resolving ambiguities, asserting a broad global reach aligned with standards like the GDPR, classifying organizations by data risk level, and ultimately strengthening the nation's data protection ecosystem to foster public trust and a secure digital economy.
Employer risk The transition from the NDPR to the GAID exposes organizations to compliance risks arising from readiness gaps, especially where internal policies, contracts, and data-handling practices have not yet been updated to meet the GAID’s more prescriptive obligations and timelines. This could lead to regulatory penalties, operational disruptions, or heightened scrutiny by the NDPC.
Link N/A
Employment contracts (case law)
Impact date: 2 October 2025 In Adeyemi Olayinka Aderiye v Reddington Multi Specialist Hospital NICN/LA/394/2022, the Court ruled against the Defendant employer, holding that the unilateral attempt to convert the Claimant’s employment contract into an independent contractor agreement was invalid and non-binding. The rationale rested on the principle of contract law that the proposed status change constituted a mere offer which the Claimant had not accepted, as evidenced by an HR email confirming his failure to sign the document; consequently, his status as an employee remained intact. As a result of this determination, the Court ordered the Defendant to pay all outstanding arrears of the Claimant’s contributory pension, along with the stipulated penalty for the failure and late remittance of those contributions.
Employer implications/action needed This judgment underscores the importance of preventing future litigation and compliance failure. Employers should undertake a comprehensive audit of all agreements for proper documentation, reform HR policies to mandate written acceptance for any contract variations and provide mandatory legal training to management and HR staff on the strict requirements for contract formation and statutory benefit compliance.
Employer risk The core risk stemming from this judgment is significant and multifaceted: since the Court invalidated the unilateral status conversion for lacking the employee's signed acceptance, the employer is immediately exposed to severe financial and compliance risks as they must not only pay the mandated, unbudgeted pension arrears but also absorb the statutory penalties for delayed remittance. Beyond the immediate case, the ruling establishes a precedent that subjects the employer to potential litigation risk from any other workers whose status was similarly changed without formal consent, fundamentally undermining the perceived security of their entire contractor workforce, requiring expensive system-wide audits and reforms to HR and legal policies to avoid further costly compliance breaches.
Link N/A
Pensionable service years (case law)
Impact date: 30 October 2025 Reginal Chukwuma Onwe v Union Bank NICN/LA/443/2021 concerned the correct computation of the Claimant's pensionable service years, where the claimant argued for a calculation based on 29 years plus of service, encompassing four years of unpaid leave taken while he served in a government appointment. The court, however, held that the bank's computation based on 25 years was correct, reasoning that the claimant was only in the bank's active service for 25 years, and since the subsequent four year leave was unpaid and he did not return to the bank's employment upon the end of his leave period but tendered his resignation, the inactive, unpaid leave period could not be included in the final computation of his pension.
Employer implications/action needed The core implication of this judgment for employers is the reaffirmation that pensionable service is generally limited to periods of active, paid employment, particularly where the contract of service, pension scheme, or other relevant regulations define it as such. This means that periods of unpaid leave, even when officially approved for appointments elsewhere, will typically not count towards an employee's total years of pensionable service, especially if the employee resigns at the end of the leave without resuming active duties. Consequently, employers should meticulously review and update their internal pension scheme rules, staff handbooks, and leave policies to explicitly and unequivocally state that service years for pension computation purposes exclude any period of unpaid leave or absence, and they must consistently apply this rule to avoid future legal disputes over terminal benefits computation.
Employer risk The primary risk for employers stemming from the judgment is the potential for unbudgeted financial liability and protracted litigation arising from ambiguous pension policies regarding periods of absence. Specifically, if an employer's staff handbook or pension scheme rules fail to explicitly and unequivocally state that periods of unpaid leave are excluded from the computation of pensionable service years, former employees may successfully argue for the inclusion of these inactive periods. This ambiguity creates a significant legal risk that a court could interpret the policy against the employer, forcing them to recalculate and pay out higher terminal benefits, not just for the individual claimant, but potentially for all similarly situated former employees, leading to a substantial and unforeseen financial exposure across multiple past and future retirements.
Link N/A
Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
Impact date: 5 November 2025 The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) recently sealed five textile warehouses in Kano, Nigeria, after a week-long surveillance and investigation.
The action was taken due to alleged consumer exploitation and unfair trade practices. Specifically, the distributors were found to be engaged in the deceptive sale of underweight and shortened fabric materials. They were allegedly charging consumers the full price for textile products that were significantly shorter than the standard measurements indicated on the labels, which violates the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.
This enforcement is part of the FCCPC's broader effort to protect consumers and ensure fair market competition in Nigeria's retail and manufacturing sectors.
Employer implications/action needed The FCCPC's decisive action establishes a clear and non-negotiable standard for all companies operating in Nigeria.
Employer risk The primary and most severe risk for employer’s following the FCCPC's textile crackdown is the potential for massive, unbudgeted financial penalties and subsequent operational disruption, as the FCCPC is empowered to levy fines up to 10% of a company's annual turnover for consumer exploitation violations.
Link N/A
President signs four new tax laws to unify Nigeria’s tax framework
Impact date: 1 January 2026
On 26 June 2025, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assented to four new statutes aimed at harmonizing Nigeria’s tax regime: the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act, 2025. These laws are scheduled to effect from 1 January 2026. This marks a major reform towards a more cohesive and transparent national tax framework.
Employer implications/action needed The Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, introduces a progressive personal income tax regime with rates ranging from 0% to 25%. Notably, individuals earning ₦800,000 or less annually are exempt from personal income tax. Additional reforms include enhanced deductions, such as a 20% rent deduction (capped at ₦500,000), designed to ease housing costs for employees and low-income earners. Employers will need to adjust payroll systems to reflect the new rates and ensure compliance with updated withholding tax obligations.
Employer risk Non-compliance with the new regime may result in penalties, interest on unpaid taxes, reputational risks, and potential audits by the restructured Nigeria Revenue Service. Employers who fail to correctly implement the revised personal income tax framework could face employee disputes and regulatory sanctions.
Link N/A
Child Online Access Protection Bill (2023)
Impact date: Awaited
The Child Online Access Protection Bill (2023), formally titled “A Bill for an Act to Provide for the Enactment of Child Online Access Protection Bill (2023) and Other Issues of Online Violence Against Nigerian Children,” is still under legislative consideration and has not yet been enacted into law. Notably, the Bill has progressed through its committee stage in the House of Representatives, marking a key step forward in legislative debate.
Employer implications/action needed If enacted, internet service providers and digital platforms will likely be required to implement tools such as age verification, content filtering, mandatory moderation of harmful content, and mechanisms for reporting online child abuse. Policies and system capabilities will need to be updated to ensure compliance with its provisions.
Employer risk While not currently binding, failure to track the Bill’s progress may leave organizations unprepared for its potential requirements—such as compliance deadlines, operational changes, or licensing adjustments.
Link N/A
Contact
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.