A Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that the National Assembly’s expenditure of N110 billion on official vehicles and support allowances for lawmakers violated procurement regulations and constitutional principles governing the use of public funds.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Yellim Bogoro, the court held that the allocation of N40 billion for the purchase of vehicles for federal legislators and N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected lawmakers failed to meet legal standards of transparency, accountability and value for money.
The suit was instituted by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), which challenged the spending shortly after it was approved in 2023.
Justice Bogoro directed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas to ensure that future spending and procurement processes by the National Assembly strictly comply with due process requirements.
According to the court, the scale of the expenditure and the absence of evidence showing adherence to procurement procedures rendered the spending unlawful.
“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 stated.
The court further observed that the lawmakers who approved the expenditure were also direct beneficiaries of the funds.
“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 ruled.
The judge noted that the court could not ignore prevailing economic conditions in the country while assessing the legality and propriety of the expenditure.
“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 said.
Rejecting arguments that the matter fell outside judicial scrutiny because it involved legislative spending, the court maintained that constitutional violations remain subject to judicial review.
“The doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality. The court is concerned with the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending,” the judgment added.
Justice Bogoro also held that the expenditure undermined the trust reposed in public office holders.
“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,” she said.
On preliminary objections raised by the defendants, the court affirmed SERAP’s legal standing to institute the action, describing the issues raised as matters of significant public interest.
“NGOs can institute actions to protect public interest. 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,” the judge ruled.
The court also held that failure to issue a pre-action notice was not fatal to the case because of the urgency and public interest implications involved.
Reacting to the verdict, SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the judgment as a victory for accountability in public service.
“This judgment is a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria,” Oluwadare said.
He added that the ruling reinforces the principle that “public office is a public trust.”
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) also welcomed the decision, commending SERAP for pursuing the matter and arguing that extravagant spending by lawmakers amid widespread economic hardship could not be justified.
The court ultimately declared that the vehicle procurement and support allowance schemes breached provisions of the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and constitutional oath requirements, while ordering stricter compliance with due process in future legislative expenditures
