By Our Correspondent

Fear grips residents of Obafemi – Owode Local Government Area of Ogun as Gunmen suspected to be bandits have allegedly killed two serving personnel of the Nigerian Army in the area.

The bandits were said to have opened fire on the Army personnel in the early hours of Monday in what many eyewitnesses described as surprise attack.

Though details of the attack still remained sketchy as at the time of filling this report, but in a viral video in circulation clearly shown a blood-soaked corpse of an Army personnel, clad in camouflage being evacuated in a pick-up van with plain-clothe security operatives suspected to be police officers and other civilian sitting closed to the corpse in the van.

When contacted, the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO) for the Ogun State Command, Oluseyi Babaseyi denied knowledge of such incident either in Abeokuta or any other part of the state.

Reacting through a phone call, the Spokesperson of the Army Public Relations Demand (APRD) at the 35 Artillery Brigade Command in Alamala Barracks, Abeokuta, Major Idereghi Samuel confirmed the attack.

Idereghi, who stressed that he was yet to get the details of the attack however, promised to get back to journalists as soon as the details and propers address of where the incident occurred.

Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has 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.

NASS complex

The court also ordered the Senate President, Mr. Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the 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, filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project against the National Assembly.

The certified true copy of the judgment was sighted on Sunday.

SERAP, in a statement issued by its deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, said it filed the lawsuit in August 2023 against Mr. Akpabio and Mr. Abbas, 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.”

She 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 further stated, “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 prioritise 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.

“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 office.

“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 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 gravamen 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 show that the Defendants allegedly approved the purchase of 465 bulletproof vehicles at about N305 million per vehicle, bringing the total project cost to N110 billion; that the expenditure is excessive and violates the Nigerian Constitution, the Public Procurement Act 2007, and the remuneration framework of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).

“It is the submission of SERAP that it wrote a letter to each of the Defendants requesting 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 submits 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 overtaken by events; and (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 whether 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 recognise public interest litigation. NGOs (as SERAP in this suit) can institute actions