The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance schemes, ruling that the spending of 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.
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.”
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 against the National Assembly.
The certified true copy of the judgment was sighted on Sunday.
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, following 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, leads me to conclude that the procurement is arbitrary, disproportionate and inconsistent with statutory procurement standards.”
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.”
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.
“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.
“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.
“The Defendants [Mr. Akpabio, Mr. Abbas, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives] formulated two principal issues for determination in response to SERAP’s Originating Summons; 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.’
“I have earlier in this judgment reproduced the question for determination as proposed by SERAP. But I will quickly state that SERAP has sought for 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 is that the planned use of the N40 billion for procurement of vehicles and N70 billion as support allowances under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022 (signed in 2023) is unlawful and in breach of Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007; paragraph 1 Part 1, Fifth Schedule (Code of Conduct for Public Officers) and Oath of Office under the Seventh Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended].
“Brief facts of the case as could be gleaned from the affidavit in support show that the Defendants allegedly approved the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at about N305 million per vehicle, bringing the total project cost to N110 billion; that the expenditure is excessive and violates the Nigerian Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
“On the issue of non-issuance of pre-action notice to the 1st Defendant, Section 21 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 provides thus: ‘A person who has cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three months written notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and relief sought.’
“The Defendants contended that failure to serve a pre-action notice is fatal; ordinarily that is the correct position. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Pre-action notice is not mandatory where the matter is urgent or where the matter involves public interest or fundamental rights.
“To this end, I have sighted Exhibits A5 and A6 attached to the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons titled ‘Re: Request to Rescind the Scandalous National Assembly Budget of ₦110 Billion to Buy 465 Bulletproof SUVs and Support New Lawmakers.’”
On jurisdictional objections, she ruled that legislative autonomy does not shield illegality, stressing that courts can intervene where constitutional breaches occur.
SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the ruling as “a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria.”
He added that the judgment shows that “public office is a public trust.”
The statement also quoted human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), saying SERAP “deserves commendation,” adding that lawmakers’ lifestyle choices amid hardship “cannot be justified.”
He urged the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission to act within its constitutional mandate on lawmakers’ remuneration.
The court declared that the vehicle procurement and allowances breached the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct rules, and constitutional oath provisions, and ordered strict compliance with due process in future spending.
