In a bold move to combat corruption within Nigeria's legislative arm, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has dragged the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas, to court. The lawsuit accuses the duo of failing to probe explosive allegations that members of the National Assembly are required to pay bribes ranging from ₦1 million to ₦3 million just to sponsor or present bills, motions, and petitions. This legal action underscores growing concerns about transparency and accountability in one of Africa's most prominent democracies, where public trust in elected officials has been eroding amid recurring scandals.
The suit, bearing the case number FHC/L/CS/2214/2025, was instituted last week at the Federal High Court in Abuja. SERAP, a non-governmental organization renowned for its advocacy on socio-economic rights and anti-corruption efforts, cited a viral video as the catalyst for its intervention. In the footage, Hon. Ibrahim Auyo, a member of the House of Representatives representing the APC from Jigawa State, openly claimed that lawmakers face financial hurdles to perform their core duties. According to Auyo, introducing a bill or motion could cost anywhere between ₦1 million and a staggering ₦3 million, implying a pay-to-play system that taints the legislative process.
SERAP's legal challenge is multifaceted. At its core, the organization is seeking an order of mandamus—a judicial command that compels public officials to fulfill their statutory duties. Specifically, SERAP wants the court to force Senator Akpabio and Speaker Abbas to forward the bribery allegations to relevant anti-corruption bodies, such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). These agencies would then conduct a comprehensive investigation, with the potential to prosecute any implicated lawmakers if evidence warrants it.
Beyond investigation, SERAP is pushing for protective measures for Hon. Auyo, whom it hails as a whistleblower. The group argues that Auyo risks retaliation or intimidation for exposing what it describes as a systemic rot. In a country where whistleblowers have historically faced threats, SERAP's demand for safeguards highlights the perilous nature of speaking truth to power in Nigeria's political landscape.
The allegations, if proven, strike at the heart of democratic governance. SERAP contends that the so-called "N3m Bribe-for-Bills" scheme represents a grave breach of public trust. Lawmakers swear an oath under the Nigerian Constitution to uphold the law and serve the people, yet this practice suggests that legislative influence is up for sale. It violates not only domestic laws but also Nigeria's commitments under international frameworks like the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Ratified by Nigeria, UNCAC mandates member states to prevent, detect, and punish corruption in all its forms, particularly within public institutions.
SERAP's arguments are rooted in constitutional principles. Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the National Assembly with the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Federation. However, if access to this law-making process is gated by bribes, it undermines the legislature's independence and renders it a marketplace rather than a bastion of democracy. "Lawmakers should not have to pay bribes to present motions or bills at the National Assembly," SERAP emphatically states. "Bribery should never influence legislative duties or the running of the parliament." Such practices, the group warns, erode citizens' democratic rights, including the right to representation free from undue influence.
The implications extend far beyond the halls of the National Assembly. In a nation grappling with economic hardships, where millions live below the poverty line, the idea that public funds or personal resources are siphoned to grease the wheels of legislation is particularly galling. It perpetuates a cycle where only the wealthy or well-connected can effectively participate in governance, sidelining ordinary Nigerians. Moreover, it mocks the separation of powers, as an compromised legislature cannot effectively check the executive or judiciary.
In its court filings, SERAP, through its legal team comprising Kolawole Oluwadare, Kehinde Oyewumi, and Andrew Nwankwo, emphasizes the restorative potential of judicial intervention. Compelling the National Assembly leadership to act, they argue, would rebuild public confidence in democratic institutions. It would signal that no branch of government is above the law and reinforce the rule of law as a cornerstone of Nigerian society. "Ensuring the investigation of the alleged N3m bribe-for-bills and prosecution of those involved will improve transparency and accountability in the National Assembly," SERAP asserts.
This lawsuit arrives at a time when anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria are under scrutiny. Despite the establishment of bodies like the EFCC, high-profile cases often languish, and political interference is a common complaint. SERAP's action could set a precedent, encouraging more civil society involvement in holding leaders accountable. It also aligns with global trends where whistleblower protections and institutional reforms are key to fighting graft.
As of now, no hearing date has been scheduled for the case, leaving the nation in anticipation. Senator Akpabio, a former governor known for his flamboyant style, and Speaker Abbas, who has positioned himself as a reformer, now face the task of responding to these serious charges. Their silence or inaction thus far has fueled SERAP's resolve.
The broader context cannot be ignored. Nigeria's National Assembly has been plagued by controversies, from budget padding allegations to lavish allowances amid national austerity. The "N3m Bribe-for-Bills" claim, if unsubstantiated, could be dismissed as political theater. Yet, Auyo's willingness to go public suggests deeper malaise. SERAP's suit is not just about one video; it's a call to cleanse the system.
Public reaction has been mixed but largely supportive of scrutiny. Social media buzzes with demands for reform, while some defend the legislature, arguing that operational costs in a complex assembly justify fees—though not bribes. Anti-corruption advocates praise SERAP for its vigilance, viewing the lawsuit as a litmus test for judicial independence.
In conclusion, SERAP's legal battle against Akpabio and Abbas is a pivotal moment in Nigeria's fight against corruption. By demanding investigation, prosecution, and protection for whistleblowers, the organization aims to uphold constitutional integrity and international obligations. Whether the court will grant the mandamus remains to be seen, but the case has already spotlighted the urgent need for legislative transparency. In a democracy, the people's house must not become a den of extortion. As Nigeria awaits the court's decision, the hope is that this action catalyzes meaningful change, restoring faith in the National Assembly and ensuring that laws are made for the people, not purchased by the privileged.
