Nigeria: Court Affirms SERAP's Right to Sue Buhari, NASS, Others Over Security Votes Spending

26 November 2019

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja yesterday granted leave to the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in a suit against President Muhammadu Buhari, Senate president Ahmed Lawan, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila "over the failure to disclose details of allocations, disbursement and spending of an estimated N241.2 billion yearly as security votes between 1999 and 2019."

Others joined as parties in the suit are: Mr Godwin Emefiele, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Ahmed Idris, Accountant General of the Federation and Mr Anthony Ayine, Auditor General for the Federation.

Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed, who gave the ruling following the hearing of an argument on ex parte motion by SERAP's counsel, Opeyemi Owolabi, expressed satisfaction that the leave ought to be granted and adjourned the motion on notice to December 10, 2019, for hearing.

Justice Mohammed ruled that hearing notices be issued and served on all the respondents within 8 days.

The order by Justice Mohammed has now cleared the way for SERAP to advance its case against the respondents and to challenge their refusal to account for the allocations, disbursement and spending of security votes by the Federal Government, 36 state governors and 774 local governments between 1999 and 2019."

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1369/2019, SERAP is applying for judicial review and an order of mandamus directing and compelling the President Buhari, Mr Lawan, and Mr Gbajabiamila to disclose details of spending of budgetary allocations as security votes since 1999.

The suit followed SERAP's Freedom of Information requests and "the respondents' failure to account for some N241.2 billion of public funds allocated, disbursed and spent yearly as security votes, and the corresponding lack of effective protection of the rights to security and welfare, life and physical integrity of millions of Nigerians."

The suit read in part: "Nigerians have the constitutional and international human right to know details of the exact amounts that have been spent as security votes and specific areas and projects covered by the allocations, disbursement and spending. There is overriding public interest in Nigerians having access to these details, and the respondents have legal obligations to facilitate public access to such information."

"Constitutional provisions requiring governments to ensure the security and welfare of the people are intended to protect the security and safety of citizens and not the security of a few individuals in government. Without transparency and accountability, the mis-management and corruption in the allocation, disbursement and spending of security votes will continue with devastating consequences."

"Public officials receiving and spending security votes ought to come clean with Nigerians on how exactly these public funds are spent. Unless the reliefs sought are granted, Nigerians would continue to see the appropriation of public funds as security votes as a tool for self-enrichment."

"The suit is seeking to offer governments at all levels an important opportunity to be transparent and accountable with the exercise of their discretionary powers in the allocation, disbursement and spending of security votes. The public interest in the disclosure of these details outweighs any private interest the respondents may be seeking to protect."

"As revealed by a 2018 report by Transparency International (TI), most of the funds appropriated as security votes are spent on political activities, mismanaged or simply stolen. It is estimated that security votes add up to over N241.2 billion every year. On top of appropriated security votes, governments also receive millions of dollars yearly as international security assistance."

Vanguard

See What Everyone is Watching

More From: Vanguard

Don't Miss

AllAfrica publishes around 700 reports a day from more than 140 news organizations and over 500 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.