Court rules N110bn allocation for lawmakers breached procurement laws, public trust
The Federal High Court in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion expenditure on vehicles and support allowances for lawmakers, ruling that the spending violated procurement laws, constitutional obligations and principles of public accountability.
In a judgment delivered on May 6, 2026, Justice Yellim Bogoro held that the allocation of N40 billion for the procurement of 465 vehicles for members of the National Assembly and N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected lawmakers was arbitrary, disproportionate and inconsistent with statutory procurement standards.
The court also directed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas to ensure that future procurements and expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly strictly comply with due process requirements and are guided by transparency, accountability and value for money.
The ruling followed a suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in August 2023 challenging the planned expenditure. The certified true copy of the judgment was sighted on Sunday.
Justice Bogoro found that the beneficiaries of the expenditure were the same officials responsible for approving it, describing the arrangement as a case of self-dealing and conflict of interest.
“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,” the judge held.
She further noted that the allocation came at a time of widespread economic hardship across the country, adding that the spending reflected a failure to prioritise the national interest.
According to the court, the doctrine of separation of powers could not be used to shield unlawful conduct, stressing that judicial intervention was justified where questions of legality and constitutionality arose.
“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,” Justice Bogoro stated.
The judge rejected arguments by the defendants that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, ruling that public interest litigation had evolved sufficiently to allow non-governmental organisations such as SERAP to challenge actions affecting public accountability.
She held that SERAP had demonstrated sufficient interest to institute the suit because the issues raised were of undeniable public concern.
On the question of pre-action notice, the court acknowledged that the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act generally requires notice before legal action can be commenced against a legislative house. However, Justice Bogoro ruled that exceptions applied in cases involving urgency, public interest or fundamental rights.
The court also dismissed arguments that the case had become academic because the funds had already been spent, holding that declaratory reliefs could still be granted where constitutional and statutory violations were alleged.
SERAP had argued that the expenditure breached provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2007, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and constitutional oath requirements. The organisation maintained that lawmakers approved the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles estimated at about N305 million each and authorised additional support allowances despite worsening economic conditions.
Reacting to the judgment, SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the ruling as a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources.
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), who was also quoted in SERAP’s statement, commended the decision, arguing that the lifestyle choices of public officials could not be justified amid widespread hardship. He urged the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission to exercise its constitutional responsibility regarding lawmakers’ remuneration.
The court ultimately declared that the vehicle procurement and allowance packages breached the Public Procurement Act, Code of Conduct provisions and constitutional obligations, while ordering strict adherence to due process in future legislative spending.