Here our anchor man, Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka takes a look at the latest judgement against the National Assembly’s purchase of SUVs and lawmakers’ allowances by a High Court in Lagos. The ruling has reignited debate on legislative spending, public trust, and the limits of legislative autonomy amid Nigeria’s economic hardship. Excerpts.
Court Declares N110bn Spending Unlawful
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance schemes. The court ruled that spending N40 billion on 465 vehicles for lawmakers and N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected members breached procurement laws, constitutional obligations, and the public trust.
Direct Orders to Akpabio and Abbas
The court also ordered the Senate President, Mr. Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Tajudeen Abbas, “to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly comply strictly with due process requirements and are also guided by the principles of transparency, accountability and value for money.”
Judgment Details
The judgment was delivered on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, by Justice Yellim Bogoro in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023, filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, against the National Assembly. The certified true copy of the judgment was sighted on Sunday.
SERAP’s Lawsuit
SERAP, in a statement issued by its deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, said it filed the lawsuit in August 2023 against Mr. Akpabio and Mr. Abbas. The suit challenged plans to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for new lawmakers amid worsening economic hardship across the country.
Judge Faults Due Process
In her judgment, Justice Bogoro held that “looking at the magnitude of the expenditure, coupled with the absence of demonstrable due process, leads me to conclude that the procurement is arbitrary, disproportionate and inconsistent with statutory procurement standards.”
Conflict of Interest Noted
She also held that “the beneficiaries of the expenditure are the very officials approving it, and the expenditure confers direct pecuniary and material benefits. This to my mind constitutes a case of self-dealing and conflict of interest.”
Economic Context Considered
Justice Bogoro further stated, “I have taken judicial notice of the economic realities in Nigeria and the widespread financial hardship affecting Nigerian citizens. In this context, the allocation of N110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers demonstrates a failure to prioritise national interest.”
Separation of Powers Not a Shield
“The Defendants have urged the Court to decline jurisdiction on grounds of legislative autonomy. It should be noted that the doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality. It is noteworthy to state that the Court is concerned on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending,” she ruled.
Fiduciary Duty Breached
“The allocation of N110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers also undermines the fiduciary duty owed to the Nigerian people. Public office must not be used for personal enrichment. Public officers must act within constitutional boundaries and in good faith. I hold that the conduct complained of is inconsistent with the oath of office.”
Issues for Determination
The Defendants formulated two principal issues: firstly, “Whether in the circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” Secondly, “Whether SERAP has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the declarations, orders, and injunctions sought.”
Constitutional Interpretation Sought
SERAP had sought judicial interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to the proposed expenditure. The gravamen of SERAP’s case was that the planned use of N40 billion for vehicles and N70 billion as support allowances under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022 is unlawful and breaches Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 and the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
Details of Vehicle Deal
Brief facts showed the Defendants allegedly approved purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at about N305 million per vehicle, bringing total cost to N110 billion. SERAP argued the expenditure was excessive and violated the Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, RMAFC.
Four Key Questions
Justice Bogoro framed four issues: whether SERAP had locus standi; whether failure to serve pre-action notice was fatal; whether the suit was overtaken by events; and whether SERAP established entitlement to relief. She began by determining jurisdictional objections including non-issuance of pre-action notice, want of cause of action, abuse of process, and whether the suit was academic.
Public Interest Standing Affirmed
“On whether SERAP has locus standi, I will state that the law has now evolved to recognise public interest litigation. NGOs can institute actions to protect public interest. From the facts and nature of the suit, SERAP has demonstrated sufficient interest. I therefore hold that SERAP has locus standi to sue, as the matters are of undeniable public concern.”
Pre-Action Notice Exception
On pre-action notice, Section 21 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 requires three months’ notice. The judge said pre-action notice is not mandatory where the matter is urgent or involves public interest. She cited SERAP’s letter titled “Request to Rescind the Scandalous National Assembly Budget of ₦110 Billion to Buy 465 Bulletproof SUVs and Support New Lawmakers.”
Breach of Multiple Laws
The court declared that the vehicle procurement and allowances breached the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct rules, and constitutional oath provisions. It ordered strict compliance with due process in future spending and urged RMAFC to act within its constitutional mandate on lawmakers’ remuneration.
SERAP and Falana React
SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the ruling as “a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria,” adding that “public office is a public trust.” Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, said SERAP “deserves commendation,” and that lawmakers’ lifestyle choices amid hardship “cannot be justified.”
A Test for Legislative Accountability
With the court’s directive, the judgment now stands as a test for legislative accountability. It signals that legislative autonomy does not excuse illegality, and that public funds must meet constitutional and procurement standards. For many Nigerians, the ruling offers hope that oversight institutions and the courts can check excesses in government spending (Punch on 7th June, 2026).
.
