Zacch Adedeji’s Campaign Role Sparks a Fresh Test of Public Trust 

On August 22, the APC unveiled President Bola Tinubu’s 2027 Presidential Campaign Council. Among the names listed was Zacch Adedeji, Executive Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), appointed Deputy Director of Fundraising under Ogun State Governor Dapo Abiodun.

The reaction was expectedly immediate.

Former Senator Dino Melaye threatened to approach the courts, arguing that a serving public official cannot legally occupy a senior position in a partisan campaign structure. The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties went further, demanding Adedeji’s resignation to protect the institutional integrity of the revenue service.

Both positions rest on the same concern: a man responsible for collecting taxes from every Nigerian and every business in the federation is now also a senior fundraiser for the government that appointed him.

Adedeji’s defenders have responded that fundraising and tax administration operate in entirely separate spheres and that no public funds will be redirected toward the campaign. 

However, theft is not primarily the issue critics are raising. It is about perception, and in an institution whose credibility depends on the public believing its decisions are made in the national interest rather than partisan ones, perception carries real weight. The irony is that Adedeji’s own record at the NRS is difficult to fault.

Between September 2023 and August 2025, the service generated N46 trillion, beating targets by 115 per cent. Full-year collections in 2025 reached N28.2 trillion. By July 2026, the agency had already pulled in N27.1 trillion. He led the transition from FIRS to NRS, absorbed collection functions from over 60 agencies, and expanded digital compliance tools including the TaxPro-Max system and a USSD channel for tax identification.

That record is precisely why his appointment to the campaign structure feels incongruous to many observers. A revenue chief commanding that kind of institutional confidence is an asset worth protecting from controversy, not a resource to deploy in a re-election drive.

The courts may yet decide whether the arrangement is lawful. The question of whether it is wise is already answered by the noise surrounding it.