By Our Reporter
In a judicial intervention that could reshape public procurement and accountability in Nigeria’s legislature, the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance schemes unlawful.
The landmark judgment, delivered by Justice Yellim Bogoro in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023, ruled that the expenditure of N40 billion on 465 luxury vehicles for federal lawmakers, alongside N70 billion earmarked as support allowances for newly elected members, fundamentally breached the country’s procurement laws, constitutional obligations, and public trust.
Although the judgment was delivered on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, the Certified True Copy (CTC) detailing the court’s strict rebukes was only obtained by journalists last week.
The legal battle was initiated in August 2023 by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), a civil society organization, against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, who were sued for themselves and on behalf of members of their respective chambers.
In a stinging critique of the federal legislature’s fiscal management, Justice Bogoro held that the scale of the spending, matched with a lack of procedural transparency, violated basic legal standards.
“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 trial judge ruled.
Furthermore, the court took aim at the ethics of the approval process, categorizing it as a 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,” Justice Bogoro added.
Consequent upon the declarations, the court issued an order directing both Akpabio and Abbas to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly comply strictly with due process requirements.
The court further emphasized that legislative spending must henceforth be guided by the principles of transparency, accountability, and value for money.
1. The Genesis of the Crisis
The litigation arose during a period of acute national economic anxiety in August 2023. Following the removal of the petrol subsidy and the floating of the Naira by the President Bola Tinubu administration, inflation spiked, plunging millions of Nigerians into severe economic hardship.
Amid public calls for government austerity, the National Assembly sparked widespread outrage by announcing the acquisition of 465 sports utility vehicles (SUVs)—reportedly bulletproof in some instances—for lawmakers, alongside a N70 billion “palliative” support package inside the 2023 supplementary budget to help new members “settle down.”
2. SERAP’s Legal Interventions
SERAP, alongside other civil society groups, argued that allocating such vast resources to the welfare of 469 lawmakers while asking over 200 million citizens to “endure hardship” was a violation of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), specifically the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy.
They contended that the National Assembly could not act as a judge in its own cause by approving opaque, multi-billion Naira packages without strict adherence to the Public Procurement Act of 2007.
3. Why This Judgment Matters
Historically, Nigeria’s judiciary has been hesitant to interfere with the internal financial allocations and management of the National Assembly, often citing the principle of the separation of powers.
This judgment sets a significant precedent by confirming that the judiciary can review and nullify legislative spending if it bypasses statutory procurement frameworks.
Legal experts believe this ruling provides a powerful tool for anti-corruption advocates to demand greater transparency regarding the traditionally cloaked “running costs” and allowances of federal lawmakers moving forward.