SERAP Drags INEC to Court Over Alleged N800 Billion FAAC Diversion for Tinubu’s 2027 Campaign.

SERAP Drags INEC to Court Over Alleged N800 Billion FAAC Diversion for Tinubu’s 2027 Campaign

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, has sued the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, over alleged failure to investigate claims that N800 billion in public funds was diverted for political purposes.

The suit, filed last week at the Federal High Court in Abuja with number FHC/ABJ/CS/1426/2026, targets allegations that governors of the All Progressives Congress, APC, are making monthly contributions from their FAAC allocations into a dedicated campaign fund for President Bola Tinubu’s re-election bid.

SERAP is asking the court for an order of mandamus to compel INEC to investigate the allegation that APC governors diverted the N800 billion for political and campaign purposes ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The organization is also seeking an order compelling INEC to demand full disclosure from the governors and the APC. This includes the names of donors to any campaign fund and the lawful source of the money contributed.

In addition, SERAP wants INEC to immediately begin a formal review to check if all political parties and candidates are complying with Section 91 of the Electoral Act, especially regarding the sources and scale of campaign financing in the current political cycle.

According to SERAP, the allegations raise serious concerns about political finance transparency, electoral fairness, and the constitutional right of Nigerians to participate freely in their own government without undue influence.

The group argued that opaque political financing is a major gateway for corruption and poses a direct threat to democratic legitimacy. It insists that Nigerians have a right to know who funds political parties and where the money comes from.

SERAP stated that the abuse of state resources for electoral advantage damages democratic integrity and public trust. It said fairness and accountability in campaign finance are critical safeguards against corruption, state capture, and undue influence.

The lawyers representing SERAP, Kolawole Oluwadare and Kehinde Oyewumi, told the court that the alleged diversion of public funds poses a grave risk to the credibility of the 2027 general elections.

They noted that large-scale public money flows, combined with weak transparency and oversight, give INEC enough reason to activate its constitutional and statutory powers to investigate and enforce the law.

The suit cited Section 91 of the Electoral Act, which empowers INEC to set donation limits, demand disclosure of contributions, and apply sanctions. A political party that exceeds the limit faces up to ₦10,000,000 fine and forfeiture of the excess, while an individual faces a fine of five times the excess amount.

SERAP also referenced the Nigerian Constitution, specifically Section 14(2)(c) which guarantees citizen participation in government, and Section 15(5) which mandates public institutions to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power.

The organization further invoked Nigeria’s international obligations under Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 25 of the ICCPR, and Articles 5, 7(3) and 9 of the UN Convention Against Corruption, all of which require transparency in political funding.

SERAP argued that when public resources are allegedly deployed for political advantage, it is not just financial misconduct. It is a direct distortion of electoral competition that erodes the principle of a level playing field and citizens’ ability to choose their leaders freely.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers, Kolawole Oluwadare and Kehinde Oyewumi, read in part: “the allegations of diversion or opaque use of public funds pose a grave risk to the integrity of the 2027 general elections.”

“Large-scale public fiscal flows, coupled with weak transparency and oversight mechanisms, provide a compelling basis for INEC to activate its constitutional and statutory mandates.”

“Political finance in Nigeria remains characterised by limited transparency, inadequate disclosure, and weak enforcement, creating significant risks of the misuse of public resources for political purposes.”

“Section 91 of the Electoral Act empowers and requires INEC to set limits on political donations that individuals or entities can make to political parties or candidates and demand disclosure of contributions and sources of funds, and enforce sanctions against violations.”

“Section 91 establishes that any political party that exceeds the prescribed donation limit is liable to a fine of up to ₦10,000,000, plus forfeiture of the excess amount. It provides that any individual who exceeds the donation limit commits an offence and is liable to a fine equal to five times the amount donated in excess of the legal limit.”

“Section 91(2) of the Electoral Act provides that any individual, candidate, or political party that exceeds the donation limits set by INEC commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to sanctions.”

“For political parties, this includes a fine of up to ₦10,000,000 and forfeiture of any amount received above the prescribed limit, while individuals are liable to a penalty of five times the amount contributed in excess of the allowable limit.”

“Exceeding donation limits attracts sanctions including fines, forfeiture of excess funds, and penalties of up to five times the amount contributed in excess for individuals.”

“The right to political participation requires that citizens have a real opportunity to exercise their political rights. The right to free, fair and transparent elections is a fundamental human right. This imposes a duty on state institutions to ensure that elections are credible, transparent, and inclusive.”
“The allegations of diversion or opaque use of public funds—particularly on the scale reported—pose a grave threat to the integrity of the 2027 general elections.”

“The combination of large-scale public fiscal flows, opaque deduction structures, and allegations of misuse public funds for political and campaign purposes creates a reasonable basis to direct INEC to exercise its investigative and monitoring mandates under the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the Electoral Act.”Demographics

“The Nigerian Constitution, the Electoral Act and anticorruption and human rights standards prohibit the misuse of state resources and impose clear obligations regarding campaign finance transparency and fairness.”

“The Commission has constitutional and statutory obligations to ensure that no individual or political party exceeds legally prescribed contribution limits, whether directly or indirectly, and to ensure full transparency regarding the origin and quantum of political funding.”

“Where allegations exist that large-scale financial resources—including potentially state-derived or publicly controlled funds—may be influencing political activity outside lawful channels, such circumstances fall squarely within the preventive and investigative mandate of the Commission, as provided for by the Electoral Act.”

“INEC continues to fail to proactively enforce the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act regarding the allegations of political finance distortion, thereby undermining public trust in electoral institutions and the right of Nigerians to participate in their own government.”Demographics

“Section 14(2)(c) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees that: “the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured.” This provision imposes a positive constitutional obligation to maintain electoral conditions that are free, fair, and not distorted by undue influence.”

“The provision also imposes a binding obligation on all institutions, including INEC, to safeguard the integrity of the democratic process.”

“Section 15(5) of the Nigerian Constitution requires public institutions to abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power. Section 13 imposes clear responsibility on INEC to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of Chapter 2 of the constitution.”

“Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees every citizen the right to participate freely in government. Similarly, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, requires that elections reflect the free expression of the will of the electorate. Nigeria has ratified both treaties.”

“Nigeria has made legally binding commitments under the UN Convention against Corruption to ensure accountability in the management of public resources. Articles 5 and 9 of the UN Convention against Corruption also impose legal obligations on the Commission to ensure proper management of public affairs and public funds.”

“These commitments ought to be fully upheld and respected. Article 7(3) of the Convention requires institutions including INEC to ensure political finance transparency. The provisions aim to prevent corruption in and through elections.”

“Where public resources are allegedly diverted or deployed for political and campaign purposes, the result is not merely financial impropriety—it is a direct distortion of electoral competition. Such actions undermine the principle of a level playing field and erode the ability of citizens to freely choose their representatives.”

“Any use of public funds for political advantage would constitute a grave violation of these national and international standards and a threat to electoral credibility.”

SERAP maintains that INEC has a binding duty to act proactively to protect the integrity of elections and public trust in democratic institutions.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.