The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle procurement and allowance schemes, ruling that the expenditure 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 directed the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 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.”

Justice Yellim Bogoro delivered the judgment on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023 filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against the National Assembly.

A certified true copy of the judgment was sighted on Sunday.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation instituted the suit in August 2023 against Akpabio and Abbas after plans emerged to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for newly elected lawmakers despite 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 further 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 also 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.”

She added, “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 judge further ruled, “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.”

Addressing the issues raised by the defendants, Justice Bogoro stated, “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.’”

She continued, “Secondly, ‘Whether SERAP has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the declarations, orders, and injunctions sought.’”

The judge explained that the case centred on SERAP’s request for judicial interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the proposed expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly.

She stated, “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.”

Justice Bogoro noted that SERAP challenged the legality of the planned expenditure under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022, signed into law in 2023.

According to her, “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].”

Reviewing the facts presented before the court, Justice Bogoro stated, “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).”

She further noted, “It is the submission of SERAP that it wrote a letter to each of the Defendants requesting a reversal of the decision which was ignored. The Defendants denied the allegations and assert that the claims are based on media speculation, that the expenditure was lawful and duly appropriated, the funds have already been expended, the suit is academic, and that there is no valid pre-action notice served.”

Justice Bogoro added, “SERAP further submits that the suit raises live constitutional issues; declaratory reliefs are still grantable despite completion of the act; and that pre-action notice is not required due to the urgency and nature of the action.”

The court then turned to the key issues for determination.

“Now back to the main issue for determination. I have from the singular question formulated these issues for determination: (1) whether SERAP has the requisite locus standi to institute this action; (2) whether failure to serve pre-action notice is fatal to this suit; (3) whether this suit has been overtaken by events; and (4) whether SERAP has established entitlement to the relief sought,” the judge said.

She continued, “I will first determine the jurisdictional issues raised by the Defendants which are issues of non-issuance of pre-action notice on the 1st Defendant; want of cause of action; abuse of court process; and whether this suit is academic.”

On SERAP’s legal standing to institute the suit, Justice Bogoro ruled, “On whether SERAP has locus standi to have brought this suit, I will state that the law has now evolved to recognise public interest litigation. NGOs (as SERAP in this suit) can institute actions to protect public interest.”

She added, “From the facts deposed and given the nature of the suit, 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.”

Addressing the issue of pre-action notice, the judge stated, “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.’”

She observed that the defendants argued that failure to serve a pre-action notice was fatal to the suit.

However, she ruled, “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.”

Justice Bogoro further stated, “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.’”

The court also dismissed jurisdictional objections raised by the defendants, stressing that legislative autonomy could not be used as a cover for unlawful conduct.

Justice Bogoro held that the doctrine of separation of powers does not shield illegality and affirmed that the court possesses the authority to review legislative spending where constitutional and statutory violations are alleged.

Reacting to the judgment, SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the decision as “a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria.”

He added that the ruling demonstrates that “public office is a public trust.”

The statement also quoted human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), who said SERAP “deserves commendation.”

Falana further stated that lawmakers’ lifestyle choices amid widespread hardship “cannot be justified.”

He also urged the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission to act within its constitutional mandate regarding the remuneration of lawmakers.

In its final orders, the court declared that the N40 billion vehicle procurement and N70 billion support allowances breached the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and constitutional oath requirements.

The court consequently ordered the leadership of the National Assembly to ensure that all future procurement processes and expenditure of public funds strictly comply with due process requirements and are guided by transparency, accountability and value for money.