By Pius Awunah
The Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) has sensitized hundreds of food vendors, hoteliers, quarries, plazas, business owners and banks on double taxation in the nation’s capital.
It amented that despite clear and repeated judgments of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court affirming the Federal Capital Territory Administration, (FCTA)’s exclusive authority over public health and environmental services, business owners in Abuja are bringing complaints of harassment by the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC).
During a sanitisation programme bringing together business owners from the hospitality, food, and service sectors, some of the owners complained of persistent demand notices, threats of sealing, and court summonses by AMAC, often for the same services they have already paid for under the FCTA, raising renewed allegations of double taxation and regulatory abuse.
The controversy is anchored on two landmark court decisions that invalidated AMAC’s actions.
In the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) v. Abuja Municipal Area Council (Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/546/2022), delivered on March 13, 2023, Hon. Justice Muawiyah Baba Idris declared AMAC’s 2020 Environmental Sanitation and Premises Inspection Bye-Law illegal and void for lacking the mandatory ministerial approval required under Section 43 of the Public Health Act.
The court held that AMAC had no authority to legislate or enforce public health regulations, describing the move as a usurpation of powers reserved for the Federal Ministers of Health and Environment.
That position was further reinforced on February 14, 2025, in Devyani International Nigeria Ltd. (KFC) v. AMAC (Suit No. CV/1642/2024), where Hon. Justice Y. Halilu ruled that food safety regulation, medical fitness certification, and environmental health services fall squarely within the FCTA’s jurisdiction.
Relying on the National Health Act 2014, the FCT Establishment Order No. 1 of 2004, and the earlier decision in Dunes Investment & Global Services v. AMAC (July 12, 2023), the court described AMAC’s actions as unlawful trespass.
It ordered a refund of N1,222,000 wrongfully collected and issued a perpetual injunction restraining AMAC from further enforcement.
The Director of Enforcement of FCTA, Ojo Adewale, who spoke with journalists in Abuja on Tuesday,December 30,2025,said, “So, the challenge is that despite the provision of the law, the national constitution and the FCT Act which empower us to carry out inspection, both to the food industry, construction, quality and everything, AMAC and other area councils, are dragging this assignment with the FCT.
“Now, the challenge is that they are trying to drag this assignment with FCT, but by question of the law, it is strictly, statiscally a duty of the FCT, and they go about forcing people to pay to them.
“So,it has been a very serious issue, you know, subjecting the operators of foods, hotels, companies to double taxation.
“We want the public to know that even if anybody comes and want to hold your business for you to pay, then if you have the law in your hand, you can tell them that this law I’m looking at and this judicial pronouncement does not say I should pay you, therefore, I will not pay you. I would rather go to FCTA and make my payment,” he said, explaining the reason for the enlightenment programme.
Rebecca Aminu, a business owner affected by the enforcement, expressed frustration while speaking with journalists. “We’ve complied fully with the FCTA requirements, yet AMAC keeps issuing notices for the same certifications and threatening to seal our premises. This harassment is crippling small businesses in Abuja,” she said.
Another operator, Folorunsho Emmanuel, echoed similar concerns. “Once you pay FCTA, AMAC comes next asking for the same money for the same service. When you resist, you are dragged to court. This double taxation is unsustainable,” he stated.
The FCTA Legal representative,Alex Ogenna Ibe,reiterated the subsisting court orders and warned against continued defiance.
He cautioned that flouting valid judgments amounts to contempt of court and disclosed that the FCTA was already considering further legal redress to compel compliance and protect business operations.
