The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has, in a landmark judgment, 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.
This is as the court ordered the Senate President, Mr. Godswill Akpabio, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Tajudeen Abbas, to ensure that all future procurements or expenditures of public funds by the National Assembly comply strictly with due process requirements and are guided by the principles of transparency, accountability, and value for money.
Justice Yellim Bogoro delivered the judgment on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023, which was brought against the National Assembly by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
The certified true copy of the judgment was obtained last week.
SERAP filed the lawsuit in August 2023 against Mr. Akpabio and Mr. Abbas, for themselves and on behalf of the members of their respective chambers.
The suit followed plans to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for new lawmakers amid worsening economic hardship across the country.
In her judgment, Justice Bogoro held that looking at the magnitude of the expenditure, coupled with the absence of demonstrable due process, led her to conclude that the procurement was arbitrary, disproportionate, and inconsistent with statutory procurement standards.
She also held that the beneficiaries of the expenditure were the very officials approving it, and because the expenditure conferred direct pecuniary and material benefits, it constituted a case of self-dealing and a conflict of interest.
Justice Bogoro’s judgment noted that she had 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 demonstrated a failure to prioritize the national interest.
Although the defendants urged the court to decline jurisdiction on the grounds of legislative autonomy, Justice Bogoro emphasized that the doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality, and the court remains concerned with the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending.
The judgment further explained that the allocation of N110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers undermined the fiduciary duty owed to the Nigerian people.
Public office must not be used for personal enrichment, and public officers must act within constitutional boundaries and in good faith.
Consequently, the court held that the conduct complained of was inconsistent with the oath of office.
The defendants formulated two principal issues for determination in response to SERAP’s Originating Summons. First, they questioned whether, in the circumstances of the case, the court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Second, they questioned whether SERAP had adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the declarations, orders, and injunctions sought.
Justice Bogoro stated that SERAP sought the judicial interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to the proposed expenditure of public funds by the defendants.
The gravamen of SERAP’s case was that the planned use of N40 billion for the procurement of vehicles and N70 billion as support allowances under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022, which was signed in 2023, was unlawful and breached Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule regarding the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and the Oath of Office under the Seventh Schedule of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, as amended.
According to the brief facts of the case gleaned from the affidavit in support, the defendants allegedly approved the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at about N305 million per vehicle, bringing the total project cost to N110 billion.
SERAP argued that this expenditure was excessive and violated the Nigerian Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
SERAP submitted that it wrote a letter to each of the defendants requesting a reversal of the decision, which was ignored.
The defendants denied the allegations, asserting that the claims were based on media speculation, that the expenditure was lawful and duly appropriated, and that the funds had already been expended.
They also argued that the suit was academic and that no valid pre-action notice had been served.
In response, SERAP submitted that the suit raised live constitutional issues, that declaratory reliefs are still grantable despite completed acts, and that a pre-action notice was not required due to the urgency and nature of the action.
To resolve the main matter, Justice Bogoro formulated issues for determination regarding whether SERAP had the requisite locus standi to institute the action, whether the failure to serve a pre-action notice was fatal to the suit, whether the suit had been overtaken by events, and finally, whether SERAP had established an entitlement to the relief sought.
Addressing the jurisdictional issues raised by the defendants regarding the non-issuance of a pre-action notice, the want of a cause of action, the abuse of the court process, and the claim that the suit was academic, Justice Bogoro stated that the law has evolved to recognize public interest litigation.
Non-governmental organizations, such as SERAP, can institute actions to protect the public interest.
Given the facts deposed and the nature of the suit, SERAP demonstrated sufficient interest as a public interest organization committed to transparency and accountability.
Therefore, the court held that SERAP had the locus standi to sue since the matters were of undeniable public concern.
Regarding the non-issuance of a pre-action notice to the first defendant, Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 provides that a person who has a cause of action against a legislative house shall serve a three-month written notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House, disclosing the cause of action and the relief sought.
The defendants contended that the failure to serve a pre-action notice was fatal, which is ordinarily the correct legal position.
However, pre-action notice is not mandatory where the matter is urgent or where it involves the public interest or fundamental rights.
Justice Bogoro cited Exhibits A5 and A6, which were attached to the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons.
These exhibits were letters written by the plaintiff to the defendants requesting a rescission of the National Assembly budget of N110 billion.
The plaintiff delivered physical copies of these letters on July 18, 2023, and acknowledged copies were attached to the filings.
While the defendants argued that the letters did not strictly comply with the principles guiding the service of a pre-action notice, Justice Bogoro considered that SERAP had expressed a genuine, existing fear that warranted protection.
SERAP’s Originating Summons was filed as a matter of utmost urgency at the time, and irreparable damage would have been done otherwise.
The evidence showed that the letters were indeed served, and the defendants failed to respond.
Although the defendants argued that the funds had already been spent and the Appropriation Act had expired, Justice Bogoro clarified that SERAP sought declaratory reliefs, which are not defeated by completed acts.
A matter is not academic where it raises a substantial question of law. Because this suit raised fundamental issues concerning accountability, public finance, and constitutional compliance, the court held that the suit was not academic.
On the substantive issue, the court focused on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending. Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act emphasizes transparency, accountability, and due process in public procurement, dictates that public procurement must not be arbitrary, wasteful, or contrary to the public interest.
While SERAP contended that the proposed expenditure was extravagant and unjustifiable, the defendants argued that SERAP presented no proof and that all allegations were speculative.
However, Justice Bogoro agreed with SERAP’s submission that the defendants effectively admitted to the appropriation of huge sums for exotic cars and inauguration expenses by stating that the vehicles were acquired for official purposes and that the appropriated funds were used judiciously.
The defendants failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance with procurement procedures, competitive bidding, or value-for-money assessments. Because they did not specifically rebut the allegations, the claims were deemed admitted.
Consequently, the court held that the proposed expenditure breached Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007. Regarding the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule requires that public officers shall not place themselves in a position of conflict or abuse their office for special benefits.
In view of this, the court held that the expenditure breached the Code of Conduct. Under the Seventh Schedule, members of the National Assembly swear to discharge their duties faithfully and act in the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Where the exercise of legislative powers violates the Constitution or statutory provisions, the court has a constitutional duty to intervene.
SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the landmark judgment as a major victory for transparency, accountability, and the responsible management of public resources in Nigeria. He noted that Justice Bogoro’s judgment demonstrates that public office is a public trust and that public funds must be used strictly in the public interest.
He commended the judge for her courage, independence, and sound reasoning, especially at a critical time when millions of Nigerians face severe economic hardship, poverty, and insecurity.
Commenting on the judgment, Femi Falana, SAN, also commended SERAP for the legal victory, stating that it confirmed that the decision of the executive and legislature to live in obscene opulence while the people live in poverty cannot be justified.
He urged the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission to study the judgment and enforce Section 70 of the Constitution, which empowers it to fix the salaries and allowances of National Assembly members.
He emphasized that the National Assembly must obey the judgment without delay, adding that addressing wasteful spending would free up substantial funds to tackle escalating insecurity across the country.
In a letter dated June 6, 2026, sent to Mr. Akpabio and Mr. Abbas, Mr. Oluwadare urged the leadership and members of the Senate and House of Representatives to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law by immediately obeying the judgment.
He noted that compliance would improve public trust and confidence in the National Assembly.
Ultimately, Justice Bogoro granted specific reliefs against Mr. Akpabio, Mr. Abbas, and the members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The court issued a declaration that the proposed plan to use N40 billion of the National Assembly budget to procure 465 bulletproof vehicles breached Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and the Oath of Office.
The court also issued a declaration that the allocation of N70 billion as a support allowance to new members of the National Assembly in the 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Act breached constitutional obligations and statutory provisions governing their conduct.
The court also made an order directing the defendants to ensure that all future procurements and expenditures of public funds comply strictly with due process requirements, transparency, accountability, and value for money.