By Muhammad Mamman
Nigeria’s legislative leadership has been thrust into a fresh crisis, as the non-profit organisation Socio‑Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has launched legal action against both the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, over alleged corruption in the process of sponsoring bills.
In a lawsuit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja (case number FHC/L/CS/2214/2025) last week, SERAP is seeking an order compelling Akpabio and Abbas “to refer to the appropriate anti-corruption agencies for investigation and prosecution the allegations of ‘₦3 m Bribe-for-Bills’ at the National Assembly.”
At the core of the claim are startling allegations made by a whistle-blower, Ibrahim Auro, a member of the House of Representatives (APC, Jigawa). In a video recorded in Hausa, Auro says that members of the National Assembly are required to pay between ₦1 million and ₦3 million each to sponsor or present bills, motions and petitions – even those who have been in office since 2015 claim not to have had bills presented unless they paid.
SERAP argues that the alleged scheme amounts to a “grave violation of the public trust and the constitutional oath of office by lawmakers.” It further contends that if members are effectively being charged to exercise their legislative duties, it seriously undermines democracy and the rule of law.
In practical terms, the lawsuit is asking the court to compel Akpabio and Abbas not just to refer the matter for investigation, but also to ensure protection of the whistle-blower and “all necessary steps to recover any proceeds of bribery.”
Although no hearing date has yet been fixed, the case places renewed focus on the governance of the National Assembly and its internal accountability mechanisms. It builds on a series of earlier legal actions by SERAP challenging the Assembly’s financial practices, including allowances, “running costs” and budgetary transparency.
For many Nigerians, the matter raises serious questions: if the process of law-making is effectively being monetised, what does this mean for equality of access to representation? And what message does it send about public institutions which are supposed to serve the people, not line the pockets of their legislators?
