The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has, in a landmark judgment, declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance schemes, ruling that the spending of N40 billion on 465 vehicles for lawmakers and N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected members breached procurement laws, constitutional obligations and the public trust.
The court also ordered the Senate President, Mr Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of House of Representatives, Mr Tajudeen Abbas “to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly comply strictly with due process requirements and are also guided by the principles of transparency, accountability and value for money.”
The judgment was delivered on Wednesday, May 6, 2026 by Justice Yellim Bogoro in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023 brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against the National Assembly. The certified true copy of the judgment was obtained last week.
SERAP filed the lawsuit in August 2023 against Mr Akpabio and Mr Abbas, for themselves and on behalf of members of their respective chambers, following plans to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for new lawmakers amid worsening economic hardship across 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.”
Justice Bogoro also 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’s judgment, read in part: “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 prioritize national interest.”
“The Defendants have urged the Court to decline jurisdiction on grounds of legislative autonomy. It should be noted that the doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality. It is noteworthy to state that the Court is concerned on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending.”
Justice Bogoro’s judgment, read in part: “The allocation of N110 Billion for the benefit of lawmakers also undermines the fiduciary duty owed to the Nigerian people. 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 officе.”
“The Defendants [Mr Akpabio, Mr Abbas, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives] formulated two principal issues for determination in response to SERAP’s Originating Summons; firstly: ‘Whether in the circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’
“Secondly, ‘Whether SERAP has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the declarations, orders, and injunctions sought.’”
“I have earlier somewhere in this Judgment reproduced the question for determination as proposed by SERAP. But I will quickly state that SERAP has sought for the judicial interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to the proposed expenditure of public funds by the Defendants.”
“The gravemen of SERAP’s case is that the planned use of the N40 Billion for procurement of vehicles and N70 Billion as support allowances under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022 (signed in 2023) is unlawful and in breach of Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007; paragraph 1 Part 1, Fifth Schedule (Code of Conduct for Public Officers) and Oath of Office under the Seventh Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended].”
“Brief facts of the case as could be gleaned from the affidavit in support. It is that the Defendants allegedly approved the purchase of 465 Bulletproof vehicles at about N305 Million Naira per vehicle the total project cost is N110 Billion that the expenditure is excessive and violates the Nigerian Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).”
“It is the submission of SERAP that it wrote a letter to each of the Defendants requesting for a reversal of the decision which was ignored. The Defendants denied the allegations and assert that the claims are based on media speculation, that the expenditure was lawful and duly appropriated, the funds have already been expended, the suit is academic and that there is no valid pre-action notice served.”
“SERAP further submit that the suit raises live Constitutional issues, Declaratory reliefs are still grantable despite completion of the act and that pre-action notice is not required due to the urgency and nature of the action.”
“Now back to the main issue for determination. I have from the singular question formulated these issues for determination. 1. Whether SERAP has the requisite locus standi to institute this action. 2. Whether failure to serve pre-action notice is fatal to this suit. 3. Whether this suit has been over taken by events and finally; 4. Whether SERAP has established entitlement to the relief sought.”
“I will first determine the jurisdictional issues raised by the Defendants which are issues of non-issuance of pre-action notice on the 1st Defendant; want of cause of action; abuse of court process and that this suit is academic.”
“On whether SERAP has locus standi to have brought this suit, I will state that the law has now evolved to recognize public interest litigation. NGOs (as SERAP in this suit) can institute actions to protect public interest.”
“From the facts deposed and given the nature of the suit, SERAP being a public interest organization 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.”
“On the issue of non-issuance of pre-action notice to the 1st Defendant, Section 21 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 provides thus: ‘A person who has cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three months written notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and relief sought.’”
“The Defendant has contended that failure to serve a pre-action notice is fatal, ordinarily that is the correct position. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Pre-action notice is not mandatory where the matter is urgent; where the matter involves public interest or fundamental rights.”
“To this end, I have sighted Exhibits A5 and A6 attached to the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons titled ‘Re: Request to Rescind the Scandalous National Assembly Budget of #110 Billion to buy 465 Bullet proof SUVs and Support New Lawmakers.’”
“I have particularly considered this paragraph of the Exhibits A5 and A6. That the Plaintiff delivered physical copies of the Plaintiff’s letter on the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 18th July, 2023. Acknowledged copies of the Plaintiff’s Letter dated 15th July, 2023 delivered to the 1st and 2nd Defendants by the Plaintiff are attached. Exhibits A5 and A6 are letters written by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.”
“It is a notice of intention to commence legal action against the Defendants. However, the Defendants have argued that the letters did not fulfil the strict compliance with the principle guiding the service of a pre-action notice. Assuming the contention of the Defendants is correct, I have considered from the facts before the Court that SERAP has expressed genuine fear existing to warrant protection.”
“SERAP’s Originating Summons was filed as a matter of utmost urgency as at the time it was filed and irreparable damage would be done. The issues raised in the Originating Summons also has raised some constitutional implications. The evidence before the Court has shown that letters were indeed served and the Defendants did not respond.”
“The Defendants have argued that the funds have been spent and the Appropriation Act has expired. However, SERAP seeks declaratory reliefs which are not defeated by completed acts. Declaratory reliefs may be granted even where the act complained of has been concluded.”
“A matter is not academic where it raises substantial question of law. I have in this wise having considered the facts of this case found that the suit raises fundamental issues concerning accountability, public finance, constitutional compliance, as such I hold the firm view that this suit is not academic.”
“Now the substantive issue. It is noteworthy to state that the Court is concerned on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending. Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act empathizes transparency, accountability and due process in public procurement. Public Procurement must not be arbitrary, wasteful and contrary to public interest.”
“In this instant case SERAP has contended that the proposed expenditure is extravagant and unjustifiable. Any public procurement must be guided by economy, efficiency and public interest. SERAP has placed before this Court evidence of the scale and nature of the expenditure. The Defendants have argued that there is no proof or substantial presentation of evidence in this matter by SERAP and that all allegations are speculative.”
“I agree with SERAP where it did submit that the Defendants, having admitted that whatever vehicles acquired are for official purposes and the use of appropriated funds are for judicious purposes, have admitted that a huge sum of monies was appropriated for the purchase of exotic cars and funds were provided for lawmakers in the 2022 Supplementary Act for the inauguration expenses of new members.”
“The Defendants have failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance with procurement procedure, competitive bidding and value for money assessment. The Defendants have not rebutted the allegations specifically made as such they are deemed admitted.”
“I therefore hold that the proposed expenditure is in breach of Section 57 (4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007. On the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule requires that Public Officers shall not place themselves in position of conflict, they shall not abuse their office for special benefit.”
“In view of this, I hold the view that the proposed expenditure is in breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. Under the Seventh Schedule, members of the National Assembly swear to discharge duties faithfully, and act in the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
“Where the exercise of legislative powers violates the Constitution or Statutory provisions, the Court not only has jurisdiction but a constitutional duty to intervene.”
“SERAP has sought for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, it is to be noted that declaratory reliefs are granted where the Plaintiff establishes entitlement by credible evidence. Having found that the Defendants acted in breach of the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct Act and the Oath of Office, I am of the strong view that the Plaintiff has successfully discharged this burden.”
SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “This landmark judgment is a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria.”
“Justice Bogoro’s judgment demonstrates that public office is a public trust and that public funds must be used strictly in the public interest and in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.”
“We commend Justice Bogoro for her courage, independence and sound reasoning in reaffirming the principles of accountability, transparency, due process and value for money in public spending.”
“The judgment comes at a critical time when millions of Nigerians are facing severe economic hardship, poverty and insecurity. Every naira diverted to unlawful or wasteful spending is a naira denied to education, healthcare, social protection and security.”
Commenting on the judgment, Femi Falana, SAN, said: “The SERAP deserves commendation for this legal victory. It has confirmed that the decision of the members of the executive and legislature to live in obscene opulence while the people are forced to live in poverty cannot be justified.”
“The Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission should study the carefully judgment and enforce section 70 of the Constitution which empowers it to fix the salaries and allowances of the members of the National Assembly.”
“The National Assembly must obey the judgment of the Court without any further delay.”
“Addressing wasteful spending would free up substantial funds that can be invested in tackling the escalating insecurity across the country, improving intelligence gathering, strengthening law enforcement institutions, supporting vulnerable communities and addressing the root causes of insecurity.”
In the letter dated 6 June 2026 sent to Mr Akpabio and Mr Abbas, SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “We urge you and members of the Senate and House of Representatives to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law by immediately obeying and respecting the judgment of the Court.”
“The immediate implementation of the judgment by the National Assembly will be a victory for the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes and management of public resources including the N110 billion.”
“SERAP urges you to make a clean break with the past and take clear and decisive steps that demonstrate the National Assembly’s commitment to the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes.”
“SERAP trusts that you will see compliance with this judgment as a central aspect of the rule of law; an essential stepping stone to constructing a basic institutional framework for legality and constitutionality, and improving public trust and confidence in the National Assembly.”
Justice Bogoro granted the following reliefs against Mr Akpabio, Mr Abbas, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
A DECLARATION that the proposed plan by the members of the Senate and House of Representatives to use Forty Billion Naira National Assembly budget to buy and procure Four Hundred and Sixty-Five bullet-proof vehicles for themselves is a breach of Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct of Public Officers (Fifth Schedule Part 1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Oath of Office for members of the National Assembly (Seventh Schedule) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
A DECLARATION that the allocation of Seventy Billion Naira as support allowance to new members of the National Assembly in the 2022 Nigerian Supplementary Appropriation Act signed by the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria in July, 2023 is a breach of the 1st and 2nd Defendants constitutional obligations to obey constitutional oaths and other constitutional and statutory provisions governing their conducts including their duty of care to Nigerians to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution and improve the welfare and well-being of Nigerians enshrined under paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct of Public Officers (Fifth Schedule Part 1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
AN ORDER is made directing the Defendants to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds comply strictly with due process requirements and are also guided by principles of transparency, accountability and value for money.
Court Declares National Assembly’s N110 Billion SUV and allowance schemes unlawful
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has, in a landmark judgment, declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle and allowance schemes, ruling that the spending of N40 billion on 465 vehicles for lawmakers and N70 billion in support allowances for newly elected members breached procurement laws, constitutional obligations and the public trust.
The court also ordered the Senate President, Mr Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of House of Representatives, Mr Tajudeen Abbas “to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds by the National Assembly comply strictly with due process requirements and are also guided by the principles of transparency, accountability and value for money.”
The judgment was delivered on Wednesday, May 6, 2026 by Justice Yellim Bogoro in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023 brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against the National Assembly. The certified true copy of the judgment was obtained last week.
SERAP filed the lawsuit in August 2023 against Mr Akpabio and Mr Abbas, for themselves and on behalf of members of their respective chambers, following plans to spend N40 billion on 465 vehicles and N70 billion in allowances for new lawmakers amid worsening economic hardship across 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.”
Justice Bogoro also 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’s judgment, read in part: “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 prioritize national interest.”
“The Defendants have urged the Court to decline jurisdiction on grounds of legislative autonomy. It should be noted that the doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality. It is noteworthy to state that the Court is concerned on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending.”
Justice Bogoro’s judgment, read in part: “The allocation of N110 Billion for the benefit of lawmakers also undermines the fiduciary duty owed to the Nigerian people. 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 officе.”
“The Defendants [Mr Akpabio, Mr Abbas, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives] formulated two principal issues for determination in response to SERAP’s Originating Summons; firstly: ‘Whether in the circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’
“Secondly, ‘Whether SERAP has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the declarations, orders, and injunctions sought.’”
“I have earlier somewhere in this Judgment reproduced the question for determination as proposed by SERAP. But I will quickly state that SERAP has sought for the judicial interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to the proposed expenditure of public funds by the Defendants.”
“The gravemen of SERAP’s case is that the planned use of the N40 Billion for procurement of vehicles and N70 Billion as support allowances under the Supplementary Appropriation Act 2022 (signed in 2023) is unlawful and in breach of Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007; paragraph 1 Part 1, Fifth Schedule (Code of Conduct for Public Officers) and Oath of Office under the Seventh Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended].”
“Brief facts of the case as could be gleaned from the affidavit in support. It is that the Defendants allegedly approved the purchase of 465 Bulletproof vehicles at about N305 Million Naira per vehicle the total project cost is N110 Billion that the expenditure is excessive and violates the Nigerian Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).”
“It is the submission of SERAP that it wrote a letter to each of the Defendants requesting for a reversal of the decision which was ignored. The Defendants denied the allegations and assert that the claims are based on media speculation, that the expenditure was lawful and duly appropriated, the funds have already been expended, the suit is academic and that there is no valid pre-action notice served.”
“SERAP further submit that the suit raises live Constitutional issues, Declaratory reliefs are still grantable despite completion of the act and that pre-action notice is not required due to the urgency and nature of the action.”
“Now back to the main issue for determination. I have from the singular question formulated these issues for determination. 1. Whether SERAP has the requisite locus standi to institute this action. 2. Whether failure to serve pre-action notice is fatal to this suit. 3. Whether this suit has been over taken by events and finally; 4. Whether SERAP has established entitlement to the relief sought.”
“I will first determine the jurisdictional issues raised by the Defendants which are issues of non-issuance of pre-action notice on the 1st Defendant; want of cause of action; abuse of court process and that this suit is academic.”
“On whether SERAP has locus standi to have brought this suit, I will state that the law has now evolved to recognize public interest litigation. NGOs (as SERAP in this suit) can institute actions to protect public interest.”
“From the facts deposed and given the nature of the suit, SERAP being a public interest organization 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.”
“On the issue of non-issuance of pre-action notice to the 1st Defendant, Section 21 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 provides thus: ‘A person who has cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three months written notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and relief sought.’”
“The Defendant has contended that failure to serve a pre-action notice is fatal, ordinarily that is the correct position. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Pre-action notice is not mandatory where the matter is urgent; where the matter involves public interest or fundamental rights.”
“To this end, I have sighted Exhibits A5 and A6 attached to the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons titled ‘Re: Request to Rescind the Scandalous National Assembly Budget of #110 Billion to buy 465 Bullet proof SUVs and Support New Lawmakers.’”
“I have particularly considered this paragraph of the Exhibits A5 and A6. That the Plaintiff delivered physical copies of the Plaintiff’s letter on the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 18th July, 2023. Acknowledged copies of the Plaintiff’s Letter dated 15th July, 2023 delivered to the 1st and 2nd Defendants by the Plaintiff are attached. Exhibits A5 and A6 are letters written by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.”
“It is a notice of intention to commence legal action against the Defendants. However, the Defendants have argued that the letters did not fulfil the strict compliance with the principle guiding the service of a pre-action notice. Assuming the contention of the Defendants is correct, I have considered from the facts before the Court that SERAP has expressed genuine fear existing to warrant protection.”
“SERAP’s Originating Summons was filed as a matter of utmost urgency as at the time it was filed and irreparable damage would be done. The issues raised in the Originating Summons also has raised some constitutional implications. The evidence before the Court has shown that letters were indeed served and the Defendants did not respond.”
“The Defendants have argued that the funds have been spent and the Appropriation Act has expired. However, SERAP seeks declaratory reliefs which are not defeated by completed acts. Declaratory reliefs may be granted even where the act complained of has been concluded.”
“A matter is not academic where it raises substantial question of law. I have in this wise having considered the facts of this case found that the suit raises fundamental issues concerning accountability, public finance, constitutional compliance, as such I hold the firm view that this suit is not academic.”
“Now the substantive issue. It is noteworthy to state that the Court is concerned on the legality and constitutionality of legislative spending. Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act empathizes transparency, accountability and due process in public procurement. Public Procurement must not be arbitrary, wasteful and contrary to public interest.”
“In this instant case SERAP has contended that the proposed expenditure is extravagant and unjustifiable. Any public procurement must be guided by economy, efficiency and public interest. SERAP has placed before this Court evidence of the scale and nature of the expenditure. The Defendants have argued that there is no proof or substantial presentation of evidence in this matter by SERAP and that all allegations are speculative.”
“I agree with SERAP where it did submit that the Defendants, having admitted that whatever vehicles acquired are for official purposes and the use of appropriated funds are for judicious purposes, have admitted that a huge sum of monies was appropriated for the purchase of exotic cars and funds were provided for lawmakers in the 2022 Supplementary Act for the inauguration expenses of new members.”
“The Defendants have failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance with procurement procedure, competitive bidding and value for money assessment. The Defendants have not rebutted the allegations specifically made as such they are deemed admitted.”
“I therefore hold that the proposed expenditure is in breach of Section 57 (4) of the Public Procurement Act 2007. On the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule requires that Public Officers shall not place themselves in position of conflict, they shall not abuse their office for special benefit.”
“In view of this, I hold the view that the proposed expenditure is in breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. Under the Seventh Schedule, members of the National Assembly swear to discharge duties faithfully, and act in the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
“Where the exercise of legislative powers violates the Constitution or Statutory provisions, the Court not only has jurisdiction but a constitutional duty to intervene.”
“SERAP has sought for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, it is to be noted that declaratory reliefs are granted where the Plaintiff establishes entitlement by credible evidence. Having found that the Defendants acted in breach of the Public Procurement Act, the Code of Conduct Act and the Oath of Office, I am of the strong view that the Plaintiff has successfully discharged this burden.”
SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “This landmark judgment is a major victory for transparency, accountability and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria.”
“Justice Bogoro’s judgment demonstrates that public office is a public trust and that public funds must be used strictly in the public interest and in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.”
“We commend Justice Bogoro for her courage, independence and sound reasoning in reaffirming the principles of accountability, transparency, due process and value for money in public spending.”
“The judgment comes at a critical time when millions of Nigerians are facing severe economic hardship, poverty and insecurity. Every naira diverted to unlawful or wasteful spending is a naira denied to education, healthcare, social protection and security.”
Commenting on the judgment, Femi Falana, SAN, said: “The SERAP deserves commendation for this legal victory. It has confirmed that the decision of the members of the executive and legislature to live in obscene opulence while the people are forced to live in poverty cannot be justified.”
“The Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission should study the carefully judgment and enforce section 70 of the Constitution which empowers it to fix the salaries and allowances of the members of the National Assembly.”
“The National Assembly must obey the judgment of the Court without any further delay.”
“Addressing wasteful spending would free up substantial funds that can be invested in tackling the escalating insecurity across the country, improving intelligence gathering, strengthening law enforcement institutions, supporting vulnerable communities and addressing the root causes of insecurity.”
In the letter dated 6 June 2026 sent to Mr Akpabio and Mr Abbas, SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “We urge you and members of the Senate and House of Representatives to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law by immediately obeying and respecting the judgment of the Court.”
“The immediate implementation of the judgment by the National Assembly will be a victory for the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes and management of public resources including the N110 billion.”
“SERAP urges you to make a clean break with the past and take clear and decisive steps that demonstrate the National Assembly’s commitment to the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes.”
“SERAP trusts that you will see compliance with this judgment as a central aspect of the rule of law; an essential stepping stone to constructing a basic institutional framework for legality and constitutionality, and improving public trust and confidence in the National Assembly.”
Justice Bogoro granted the following reliefs against Mr Akpabio, Mr Abbas, and members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
A DECLARATION that the proposed plan by the members of the Senate and House of Representatives to use Forty Billion Naira National Assembly budget to buy and procure Four Hundred and Sixty-Five bullet-proof vehicles for themselves is a breach of Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct of Public Officers (Fifth Schedule Part 1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Oath of Office for members of the National Assembly (Seventh Schedule) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
A DECLARATION that the allocation of Seventy Billion Naira as support allowance to new members of the National Assembly in the 2022 Nigerian Supplementary Appropriation Act signed by the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria in July, 2023 is a breach of the 1st and 2nd Defendants constitutional obligations to obey constitutional oaths and other constitutional and statutory provisions governing their conducts including their duty of care to Nigerians to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution and improve the welfare and well-being of Nigerians enshrined under paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct of Public Officers (Fifth Schedule Part 1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
AN ORDER is made directing the Defendants to ensure that all future procurements or expenditure of public funds comply strictly with due process requirements and are also guided by principles of transparency, accountability and value for money.
