The Federal High Court in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance scheme, ruling that the expenditure violated procurement laws, constitutional provisions, and the public trust.
Justice Yellim Bogoro held that the spending of N40 billion on 465 vehicles for lawmakers, alongside N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected members, failed to meet the standards of due process, transparency, accountability, and value for money required in the management of public funds.
The court further directed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas to ensure that all future procurements and public expenditures by the National Assembly strictly comply with due process requirements and established principles of accountability.
The judgment was delivered 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.
SERAP, in a statement issued by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, said the suit was filed in August 2023 following the National Assembly’s plan to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for new lawmakers amid worsening economic hardship in 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 noted the prevailing economic hardship in the country, stating that the allocation of N110 billion for lawmakers reflected a failure to prioritise national interest.
“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 ruled.
The judge dismissed the argument by the defendants that the court lacked jurisdiction on the basis of legislative autonomy.
“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,” she stated.
Justice Bogoro added that the expenditure undermined the fiduciary duty owed to Nigerians by public officials.
“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 ruled.
According to the judgment, SERAP argued that the planned expenditure violated Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007, provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and the Oath of Office contained in the 1999 Constitution as amended.
The court noted that the lawmakers allegedly approved the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at about N305 million per vehicle, bringing the total project cost to N110 billion.
SERAP further stated that it had written to the National Assembly leadership requesting a reversal of the decision but received no response.
The defendants, however, argued that the expenditure was lawful, duly appropriated, and that the suit was academic because the funds had already been spent.
On the issue of SERAP’s legal standing, Justice Bogoro ruled that public interest organisations have the right to institute actions aimed at protecting public accountability and transparency.
“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 judge held.
