On Thursday, the federal government of Nigeria said it has begun moves to freeze members of Multichoice Group’s bank accounts over N1.8 trillion tax debt.

Members of Multichoice Group involved are, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited (MCN) And MultiChoice Africa (MCA). Nigeria’s tax authority, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) said it had engaged banks as agents to freeze and recover N1.8 trillion from their respective accounts.

Abdullahi Ahmad, Director, Communications and Liaison Department of FIRS, made this known in Abuja on Thursday through a statement issued by the FIRS.

The tax body disclosed that the decision to appoint the banks as agents and freeze the accounts was due to MultiChoice’s continued refusal to grant FIRS access to their servers for audit.

According to the agency, the companies persistently breached all agreements and undertakings.

“The companies would not promptly respond to correspondence. They lacked data integrity and are not transparent as they continually deny FIRS access to their records.

“Particularly, MCN has avoided giving the FIRS accurate information on the number of its subscribers and income. The companies are involved in the under-remittance of taxes which necessitated a critical review of the tax-compliance level of the company.”

The FIRS added that the groups’ performance did not reflect their tax obligations and compliance level in the country.

The FIRS further noted that the level of non-compliance by Multichoice Africa (MCA), the parent Company MCN, was very alarming, adding that the parent company, which provided services to MCN, had not paid Value Added Tax (VAT) since its inception.

It said, “The issue with Tax collection in Nigeria, especially from foreign-based Companies conducting businesses in Nigeria and making massive profits, is frustrating and infuriating to the FIRS.

“Regrettably, Companies come into Nigeria just to infringe on our tax laws by indulging in tax evasion. There is no doubt that broadcasting, telecommunications, and the cable-satellite industries have changed the face of communication in Nigeria. However, when it comes to tax compliance, some companies are found wanting. They do with impunity in Nigeria what they dare not try in their countries of origin.”

The FIRS chairman stated that Nigeria contributed 34 per cent of total revenue for the Multi-Choice group.

According to him, other African countries they have a presence account for 45 per cent of the group’s total revenue.

“Information currently at the disposal of FIRS has revealed a tax liability for relevant years of assessment for ?1.8 trillion and $342.5 million. FIRS is powered in Section 49 of the Companies Income Tax Act Cap C21 LFN 2004 as amended, Section 41 of the Value Added Tax Act Cap V1 LFN 2004 as amended, and Section 31 of the FIRS (Establishment) Act No. 13 of 2007,” disclosed Mr Nami.

He added, “In this regard, the affected banks are required to sweep balances in each of the above-mentioned entities’ accounts and pay the same in full or part settlement of the companies’ respective tax debts until full recovery.

“This should be done before the execution of any transaction involving the companies or any of their subsidiaries. It is further requested that the FIRS be informed of any transactions before execution on the account, especially transfers of funds to any of their subsidiaries.

”It is important that Nigeria puts a stop to all tax frauds that had been going on for too long, and all companies must be held accountable and made to pay their fair share of relevant taxes including back duty taxes owed especially VAT.”

In response, MCN said it has not received any notification from the FIRS, and it is willing to cooperate with the tax body, yielding to its demand of transparency.

However, the development makes Multichoice the second South African company caught in the web of Nigeria’s tax authorities. Telecom giant, MTN was in 2018, caught in a $2 billion tax evasion scandal. Though the largest telco in Nigeria found a way out of the hook, the incident stirred the government’s eagerness to close tax loopholes, especially from multinational companies.

Nigeria’s tax to GDP ratio has seen a decade of drastic decline, reaching 6.1% as of July 2020, among the lowest in the world. FIRS’ move on Multichoice signals the government’s determination to close Nigeria’s tax loose ends, particularly in the face of an economic downturn orchestrated by the decline in oil revenue.

One of the mistakes people make is assuming that data are infallible. When some individuals want to prove the accuracy of their assertions, they back them up with related data and expect everyone else to accept their argument. Of course, it is always good to use facts and figures as a buffer for arguments but that doesn’t mean that what is said is true. The truth is, “data” is not always right. This is one thing you should always bear in mind each time you pull up published information or data as the basis for your argument.

You see, what is written on paper or published on the internet is not the problem but the processes it passed through before it was published. If you had noticed, while you were in school (or even right now in your office), you are always expected to use different sources for writing an assignment, a proposal, a report, or a project. The people that tell you to do so are not out to stress you but to make sure that the imperfection in the data you are using is reduced. If you pay attention to the differences in the data published about a particular phenomenon, you will discover the discrepancies in them. Of course, ordinarily, factors, such differences in age, gender, class, race, religion, cultural orientation, financial status, social environment, and so on, affect data. But data collected from the same group of persons within the same time frame and by the same persons (or maybe different persons) can come out differently. This is why you shouldn’t always “swear” that what is published is the absolute truth because you think it is objective.

As mentioned earlier, sometimes, the same set of data can be collected from a group of respondents but they will not give the same result. The factors that can cause these discrepancies can come from the data collection method, the data collector, and the respondents themselves.

The method used in collecting data affects what is gathered. For instance, a questionnaire is supposed to be the most unbiased method but then, it makes respondents self-conscious and less willing to reveal sensitive information. People easily lie on questionnaires. Then, the interview is another avenue that allows respondents to be studied objectively. But it is not all information that can be gathered through interviews. Besides, respondents can also lie through this method. Finally, the observation method is usually the best when the data collector wants to get unbiased data from respondents. However, this method works better when the observation is carried out over a long period and the data collector is not biased.

Data collectors also contribute towards making data fallible. People sit down in their houses to falsify information based on “what they see happening around them.” They assume for the respondents and, so, supply data based on what they think and not on what is real. Some collectors also manipulate respondents into supplying the type of information that suits their (that is collectors’) narratives. There are also cases of misrepresentations, where data collectors select respondents that are either unsuitable for the research or those that will supply the desired information. All these and more are reasons you should be careful with how you rely on published data.

There are so many factors that can make respondents supply different information at different times. The first one is emotion and other physical conditions, such as illness, hunger, and the rest of them. Then, there are respondents that deliberately supply inaccurate information or even refuse to supply any. Some misunderstand what was demanded from them and many provide information to impress the data collector.

You know, the reasons mentioned above are part of why the use of secondary data is not always encouraged in any research project. Unless you are the one that collected the data, you cannot boldly use them to arrive at a conclusion. This is just to say that you should take all these figures you see out there with a pinch of salt because not all of them are facts.