SERAP sues INEC over N126bn electoral funds

SERAP sued INEC because an Auditor-General’s report raised concerns about how more than N126.46bn appropriated for electoral operations was managed. The organisation says electoral funds are public resources, so the commission must show that every naira was lawfully spent and used for its approved purpose. The case seeks public accountability, not merely a general explanation.

SERAP is asking the Federal High Court in Abuja for an order of mandamus. It wants INEC to disclose expenditure, payment and disbursement details, including contractors, beneficiaries and beneficial owners. The request follows allegations covering transactions mainly from January to December 2022, with some extending to December 31, 2023.

The Auditor-General reportedly identified payments lacking procurement evidence, proof of supply or value for money. These included more than N112bn for ballot boxes, electoral devices and other materials. If the case succeeds, INEC would face a formal duty to provide the requested records and account for the materials.

The disputed amount is more than N126.46bn in funds appropriated for electoral operations. SERAP seeks a complete account of how much was released, paid and disbursed. It also wants INEC to identify payment beneficiaries, contractors and their beneficial owners. The concern covers public money intended to support Nigeria’s electoral system.

The largest cited transaction was N112,155,597,845 for ballot boxes, electoral devices and other materials. The report also identified N1.058,925,000 for Toyota Prado TXL 2021 model vehicles. Other cited payments included N3,136,806,050 for ballot guides, sensitive materials and result sheets, and N9,245,965,502.60 for 22 similar contracts.

Additional transactions involved accounting audits, accreditation devices, sleeping mats and digital archiving services. The article says the wider funds were earmarked for procurement of election materials, equipment and vehicles, plus other electoral services. SERAP wants documentary and physical evidence showing what was bought and where the materials are now.

An order of mandamus is a legal remedy that directs a public authority to carry out a duty required by law. It does not itself decide that every allegation is true. Instead, it can require the authority to take the specified action, such as releasing records or making a formal account.

In this case, SERAP asks the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel INEC to disclose expenditure, utilisation and disbursement details. The requested information includes amounts released and paid, payment beneficiaries, contractors and their beneficial owners. SERAP also seeks a comprehensive financial and documentary account.

If granted, the order would require INEC to provide the information described in the suit. SERAP further wants evidence that more than N112bn was used for the materials concerned, plus details of their present location and status. The order would therefore turn disclosure into a court-enforced obligation, subject to the court’s ruling.

The Auditor-General’s concerns centred on procurement safeguards designed to make public contracting open and properly reviewed. The report reportedly said some payments lacked competitive bidding or a certificate of no objection from the Bureau of Public Procurement. In one vehicle transaction, it also cited no advertisement or bid evaluation.

The alleged breaches varied by transaction. INEC was accused of paying for materials without competitive bidding, paying for vehicles without the required procurement steps, and paying four contractors before contracts were awarded. The report also identified 22 similar contracts allegedly split and awarded on the same day, raising concerns that procedures were circumvented.

These findings remain allegations reported in the suit, not a final court determination. The Auditor-General recommended recovery in some cases and questioned whether goods or services were supplied. SERAP is asking the court to require INEC to produce records that could show how procurement decisions were made and whether the required safeguards were followed.

The Auditor-General questioned supply and value for money because records reportedly did not prove that contracted goods or services were delivered. For the largest payment, the report allegedly found no evidence that the items were procured. It also said the contractors’ competence, experience, capacity, addresses and factory locations were unknown.

Other examples added different concerns. A payment for accreditation devices allegedly involved an expired APG before delivery of the security licence key, while the software was valid for only four months. The report also cited audit-service payments without evidence of utilisation, requests or expenditure by consultants. Contracts for sleeping mats and digital archiving were allegedly given to unqualified contractors.

The report therefore raised questions about whether money bought usable goods or services at a reasonable value. It expressed concern that funds may have been diverted, lost or inflated, and recommended recovery in some cases. SERAP wants documentary and physical proof, including the materials’ current location and status.

If the court orders disclosure, INEC would have to provide the financial and documentary information sought by SERAP. That could show how much was released and paid, who received the payments, which contractors held the contracts and who beneficially owned those companies. It could also clarify whether procurement requirements were followed.

The order could require evidence about more than N112bn allegedly paid for ballot boxes, electoral devices and other materials. SERAP wants proof that the items were actually procured, along with their present location and status. Those records could be compared with the Auditor-General’s allegations about missing supplies, unknown contractor capacity and possible diversion.

The article does not state what the court will decide or what enforcement would follow. However, disclosure could give investigators, auditors and the public a clearer basis for assessing the transactions. If the records support the reported concerns, the Auditor-General’s recommendations for recovery and remittance to the treasury could become more significant.

Audits, procurement controls and disclosure create connected checks on public spending. An audit reviews transactions and can identify missing records, questionable payments or weak results. Procurement rules add safeguards before money is committed, such as competitive bidding, bid evaluation and approval checks. Public disclosure lets citizens and oversight bodies examine what happened.

The case illustrates why those checks matter. The Auditor-General reportedly found payments without competitive bidding, certificates of no objection or evidence of supply. It also questioned contracts allegedly split to circumvent procedures. Requiring records about amounts, beneficiaries, contractors and materials can connect the payment trail with the promised goods or services.

These mechanisms do not automatically prove wrongdoing or guarantee recovery. They can, however, expose gaps early, clarify responsibility and support corrective action. In this case, SERAP is asking the court to compel INEC to account for the funds. The Auditor-General recommended recovery and treasury remittance for some transactions, showing how oversight can lead to practical consequences.