***Orders Full Compliance With Procurement Law
A Federal High Court in Lagos has delivered a scathing judgment against the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance packages, describing the arrangement as a breach of public trust, procurement laws, and constitutional safeguards on public spending.
In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s political and accountability circles, Justice Yellim Bogoro declared the luxury procurement of 465 bulletproof SUVs—alongside multi-billion-naira “support allowances” for lawmakers—illegal, excessive, and inconsistent with due process.
The court held that the spending pattern, estimated at N40 billion for vehicles and N70 billion in allowances, amounted to a violation of the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and constitutional provisions governing transparency in public finance.
At the centre of the judgment was a damning finding: that lawmakers directly benefited from a budget they approved for themselves.
Justice Bogoro did not mince words, describing the arrangement as a textbook case of self-dealing and conflict of interest, warning that public office cannot be converted into a platform for personal enrichment under the guise of legislative autonomy.
“Separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality,” the court declared, effectively dismantling arguments that legislative immunity could protect questionable spending decisions.
The judge further ruled that the scale and structure of the expenditure showed a lack of due process and disregard for Nigeria’s procurement framework, stressing that public funds must be guided by transparency, accountability, and value for money—not institutional privilege.
The court also dismissed objections raised by the National Assembly challenging the jurisdiction of the court, affirming that public interest litigation—especially involving alleged misuse of public funds—falls squarely within judicial oversight.
The suit, filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), argued that the expenditure was both unlawful and morally indefensible at a time of widespread economic hardship.
Justice Bogoro agreed in principle, noting that the scale of the spending, in the context of national financial strain, reflected a failure to prioritize the public interest.
In a further directive, the court ordered Senate President Godswill Akpabio and House Speaker Tajudeen Abbas to ensure that all future National Assembly expenditures strictly comply with procurement laws and accountability standards.
The judgment effectively reframes the controversy not just as a budgeting dispute, but as a constitutional violation involving the misuse of public resources by those entrusted to safeguard them.
SERAP welcomed the ruling as a landmark victory, insisting it reinforces the principle that public office is a trust, not a privilege.
The National Assembly has yet to respond to the judgment, leaving open questions about compliance and possible political fallout from one of the strongest judicial rebukes of legislative spending in recent years.