- Court Declares ₦40bn Vehicle Purchase, ₦70bn Lawmakers’ Allowances Illegal
- SERAP challenged vehicle purchase and lawmakers’ allowances in court.
- Judge said expenditure violated procurement laws and public trust.
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared the National Assembly’s controversial ₦110 billion vehicle procurement and lawmakers’ allowance scheme unlawful, ruling that the expenditure violated procurement laws, constitutional provisions, and public accountability standards.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, Justice Yellim Bogoro held that the spending of ₦40 billion on 465 official vehicles for lawmakers and ₦70 billion in support allowances for newly elected members was arbitrary, excessive, and inconsistent with statutory procurement procedures.
EDITOR’S PICKS
- Panic as Flood Sweeps Man Away After Heavy Rainfall in Delta
- Boko Haram Releases 416 Abducted Women, Children In Borno
- MTN Boss Rejects Claims of Expensive Data in Nigeria
EKO HOT BLOG reports that the suit was filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), which challenged the legality of the expenditure under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022, signed in 2023.
SERAP argued that the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at an estimated ₦305 million each, alongside the allowances, violated the Public Procurement Act, 2007, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission framework, and constitutional provisions governing public office conduct.
In her ruling, Justice Bogoro agreed with the group, stating that the process lacked due transparency and proper justification.
“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 said.
The judge also noted that lawmakers stood to benefit directly from the expenditure they approved, describing it as a clear conflict of interest.
“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,” she held.
Justice Bogoro further referenced Nigeria’s economic hardship, stating that the allocation of such funds demonstrated a failure to prioritise national needs.
“The allocation of ₦110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers demonstrates a failure to prioritise national interest,” she said.
She dismissed arguments by the defendants, including Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, that the court lacked jurisdiction due to legislative autonomy, insisting that separation of powers does not protect illegality.
“The doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality,” the judge ruled, adding that courts retain the authority to examine the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending.
The court also addressed procedural objections raised by the defendants, including claims of lack of pre-action notice and abuse of court process. Justice Bogoro held that while pre-action notice is generally required under the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, exceptions exist where public interest and urgency are involved.
On SERAP’s standing, the court affirmed that the organisation had the legal right to institute the case, recognising the role of public interest litigation in promoting accountability.
“NGOs such as SERAP can institute actions to protect public interest,” she stated.
The defendants had argued that the funds had already been expended, making the case academic, but the court rejected this position, holding that constitutional questions remained live and justiciable.
SERAP had earlier written to the National Assembly requesting a reversal of the decision, which was allegedly ignored before the suit was filed in August 2023.
Justice Bogoro ultimately ordered that all future procurements and expenditures by the National Assembly must strictly comply with due process, transparency, accountability, and value-for-money principles, reinforcing that public office must not be used for personal enrichment.
