Court Dismisses SERAP’s Suit Challenging National Assembly’s Power Over Own Budget 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) challenging the powers of the National Assembly to amend its budget in the 2024 Appropriation Act.

Justice James Kolawole Omotosho ruled, among others, that SERAP lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.

The judge upheld the argument of Dr. Sheriff Abiodun Adesanya, who represented the 1st Respondent (the Senate President), that the interest of SERAP and that of the 20 concerned citizens it represented, was no greater than that of the general public.

Furthermore, Justice Omotosho agreed with Dr. Adesanya (of Abiodun Adesanya & Co) that the plaintiff’s claims were without merit.

He dismissed the case in its entirety.

SERAP, through Andrew Nwankwo of Eko Akete Chambers, had contended that the National Assembly’s unilateral increase of its budget allocation from ₦197 billion to ₦344 billion contravened Section 81 of the Constitution, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and democratic principles, particularly the separation of powers.

The organization sought a declaration that the budgetary increase was unconstitutional and requested orders compelling the National Assembly to adhere to constitutional procedures by re-presenting any amended appropriation bills to the President for approval before enactment.

But the lawmakers opposed SERAP’s argument.

Apart from arguing that the Plaintiffs had no standing to initiate the suit, Dr. Adesanya also defended the procedural validity of the National Assembly’s budgetary actions, Saying SERAP failed to show that the lawmakers’ action was procedurally irregular.

The lawyer had told the court that “It is respectfully submitted that the presumption of regularity enjoyed by the National Assembly’s Act must be rebutted by the Plaintiffs. Apart from speculative claims by the Plaintiffs that the altered appropriation bill was not forwarded to the President after amendment by the National Assembly, there is no evidence (assuming such alteration necessitated representation to the President) to support this assertion.”

Defending the National Assembly’s power, Dr. Adesanya said: “There is no provision in the Constitution which stipulates that the National Assembly cannot amend the budget estimate and enact same into law without consulting the President on the amendment.”

The 2nd Respondent, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, did not appear in the proceedings and was unrepresented.