The Federal High Court in Lagos has delivered a landmark judgment declaring unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion expenditure on vehicles and support allowances for federal lawmakers, ruling that the spending violated procurement regulations, constitutional provisions, and the principles of transparency and accountability expected of public office holders.
The decision, delivered by Justice Yellim Bogoro on May 6, 2026, marks one of the most significant judicial interventions in recent years concerning the management of public funds by Nigeria’s legislative arm. The court held that the planned expenditure of N40 billion for the procurement of 465 vehicles for members of the National Assembly, alongside N70 billion earmarked as support allowances for newly elected lawmakers, was inconsistent with the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and the constitutional oath of office sworn by public officials.
The case, filed under suit number FHC/L/CS/1606/2023, was instituted by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, who were sued in their capacities as leaders of the National Assembly.
In addition to invalidating the expenditure, the court directed the leadership of the National Assembly to ensure that all future procurement exercises and public spending strictly comply with due process requirements and are guided by the principles of transparency, accountability, competitiveness, and value for money.
According to the Certified True Copy of the judgment obtained by SERAP, Justice Bogoro found that the scale of the expenditure and the inability of the National Assembly to demonstrate compliance with procurement procedures rendered the spending unlawful.
The judge held that the enormous amount involved, coupled with the absence of evidence showing adherence to statutory procurement standards, raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of the expenditure.
“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 court ruled.
A central issue in the case was the fact that the lawmakers who approved the expenditure were themselves the direct beneficiaries of the funds. Justice Bogoro described this arrangement as a classic case of self-dealing and conflict of interest.
According to the court, public officials cannot legitimately authorize expenditures that provide them with substantial personal benefits without satisfying strict standards of transparency and accountability.
“The beneficiaries of the expenditure are the very officials approving it, and the expenditure confers direct pecuniary and material benefits,” the judge stated.
“This, to my mind, constitutes a case of self-dealing and conflict of interest.”
The judgment also reflected concern about the broader economic realities confronting Nigerians. Justice Bogoro noted that the court could not ignore the severe financial difficulties facing millions of citizens while public officials approved massive expenditures for their own benefit.
Taking judicial notice of the prevailing economic hardship across the country, the judge questioned the priorities reflected in the allocation of such enormous resources to lawmakers.
“I have taken judicial notice of the economic realities in Nigeria and the widespread financial hardship affecting Nigerian citizens,” the court observed.
“In this context, the allocation of N110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers demonstrates a failure to prioritise national interest.”
The National Assembly had argued that the doctrine of separation of powers protected its internal spending decisions from judicial scrutiny. However, Justice Bogoro firmly rejected that position, emphasizing that constitutional institutions remain subject to the law.
According to the judgment, the principle of separation of powers cannot be used as a shield to justify unlawful conduct.
“The doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality,” the judge ruled.
“The court is concerned with the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending.”
Justice Bogoro further held that the expenditure violated the fiduciary responsibilities owed by public office holders to Nigerian citizens. Public officials, the court said, must exercise their powers in good faith and within constitutional boundaries.
“Public office must not be used for personal enrichment,” the judge stated.
“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.”
SERAP initiated the legal challenge in August 2023 following reports that the National Assembly intended to spend N40 billion on the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles for lawmakers while also approving N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected legislators.
The organization argued that the spending violated Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007, Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, and the oath of office contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
In response, lawyers representing the National Assembly contended that the expenditure had been duly appropriated and implemented, making the suit merely academic. They also challenged SERAP’s legal standing to institute the action and argued that the organization failed to comply with pre-action notice requirements.
The court, however, dismissed those objections.
Justice Bogoro affirmed SERAP’s standing to bring the lawsuit, describing the matter as one of significant public interest and reinforcing the growing acceptance of public interest litigation within Nigeria’s legal system.
“NGOs can institute actions to protect public interest,” the judge held.
“SERAP, being a public interest organisation committed to transparency and accountability, has demonstrated sufficient interest.”
“I therefore hold that SERAP has locus standi to sue, as the matters are of undeniable public concern.”
The court also dismissed arguments concerning the absence of pre-action notice, ruling that the urgency and public importance of the matter justified judicial intervention.
On the substantive issues, the judge found that the defendants failed to produce credible evidence showing compliance with procurement procedures, competitive bidding requirements, or value-for-money assessments.
“The defendants have failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance with procurement procedure, competitive bidding and value-for-money assessment,” the court ruled.
“The defendants have not rebutted the allegations specifically made, and as such they are deemed admitted.”
Justice Bogoro consequently declared that the procurement scheme and support allowance programme violated both the Public Procurement Act and the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
“Where the exercise of legislative powers violates the Constitution or statutory provisions, the court not only has jurisdiction but a constitutional duty to intervene,” she stated.
Reacting to the judgment, SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the ruling as a major victory for transparency, accountability, and responsible public finance management.
According to him, the judgment reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust and that government resources must be used strictly in the public interest.
He noted that the decision comes at a time when millions of Nigerians continue to struggle with poverty, insecurity, inflation, and rising living costs.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, also welcomed the ruling, arguing that it exposed the widening disconnect between political office holders and ordinary citizens.
Falana commended SERAP for pursuing the case and called on the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission to fully exercise its constitutional powers in determining the salaries and allowances of lawmakers.
He further urged the National Assembly leadership to comply fully with the judgment and implement the court’s directives without delay.
In a follow-up letter dated June 6, 2026, SERAP formally urged Senate President Akpabio and Speaker Abbas to immediately enforce the court’s orders.
The organization argued that prompt compliance would strengthen public confidence in democratic institutions and demonstrate a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.
The judgment ultimately granted three major reliefs, including declarations that both the N40 billion vehicle procurement scheme and the N70 billion support allowance programme violated constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as an order compelling the National Assembly to ensure that all future expenditures adhere strictly to due process, transparency, accountability, and value-for-money principles.
The ruling is widely regarded as a significant precedent in the ongoing effort to promote responsible governance and strengthen oversight of public spending in Nigeria.
