SERAP drags FG to ECOWAS Court over N78.8bn cash transfer

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has dragged the Federal Government before the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States over its alleged failure to account for more than N78.8bn allocated to cash-transfer and social protection programmes for vulnerable Nigerians.

The organisation is asking the regional court to compel the government to account for the questioned expenditure, investigate alleged financial irregularities, recover any public funds found to have been improperly spent and strengthen accountability mechanisms governing the programmes.

In the suit, marked ECW/CCJ/APP/42/26, SERAP is also seeking orders directing the government to establish whether the money reached the intended beneficiaries and take appropriate measures to ensure that eligible households are not deprived of assistance because of financial mismanagement or inadequate controls.

The action is predicated on findings contained in the Auditor-General for the Federation’s 2024 Annual Report, published on August 7, 2026, which identified financial management deficiencies involving the National Cash Transfer Office and the National Social Safety Nets Coordinating Office.

According to the audit findings cited in the application, the questioned transactions and financial management practices occurred between January 2023 and December 2024 and involved several federal institutions responsible for administering social protection programmes.

SERAP argued that the alleged irregularities went beyond administrative and accounting lapses, contending that they raised fundamental questions about the government’s obligation to protect public resources allocated to economically vulnerable citizens.

The organisation maintained that the government’s responsibility did not end with establishing welfare programmes and allocating funds but extended to ensuring that the resources were properly managed and delivered to the people for whom they were intended.

More than 3.2 million households across 35 states were reportedly covered by the programmes, a development SERAP said gave the case significant human rights implications.

The organisation is asking the ECOWAS Court to determine whether Nigeria has fulfilled its obligations under regional and international human rights instruments, particularly those protecting the right to social security, an adequate standard of living and economic and social development.

However, SERAP acknowledged that the audit queries did not, by themselves, establish that the entire N78.8bn was stolen, that all beneficiaries were denied assistance or that any particular government official or beneficiary committed a crime.

It stressed that it was not asking the court to determine criminal guilt on the basis of audit queries but to examine whether the government had adequately safeguarded the funds, investigated the identified deficiencies and taken effective corrective measures.

One of the major concerns raised in the application relates to approximately N33.751bn reportedly transferred in 2023 to 3,295,207 households across 35 states.

According to the Auditor-General’s findings cited by SERAP, adequate records were not produced to authenticate the payments and reconcile them with the relevant beneficiary records.

The organisation is therefore questioning whether the authorities can provide verifiable evidence showing the amounts disbursed, the identities of the intended beneficiaries, the authorisations for the payments and records demonstrating that the transactions were properly reconciled.

It argued that for a programme involving millions of households, accurate payment and beneficiary records were essential to establishing whether the money reached eligible recipients and whether payments were made in the correct amounts.

SERAP said the absence of such records could make it difficult for auditors and oversight authorities to determine whether discrepancies occurred during the implementation of the programme or whether the funds were properly utilised.

Consequently, it is seeking the production of relevant beneficiary information, payment records, verification documents, authorisations and reconciliation records relating to the N33.751bn transfers.

The organisation is also asking the government to explain the absence of relevant REMITA records identified in the audit findings.

Another major item in the audit report concerns approximately N36.744bn in payments reportedly made without prepayment audits.

Prepayment audits are financial control mechanisms designed to establish whether proposed payments comply with applicable financial regulations and requirements before public funds are released.

SERAP argued that the absence of the required checks raised questions about whether the necessary safeguards were observed and whether the transactions could be independently verified.

It, however, acknowledged that the failure to conduct prepayment audits did not automatically establish that every payment was improper.

The Auditor-General also questioned approximately N4.616bn in expenditure for which supporting documentation was reportedly not provided.

Other items identified in the application include about N350.182m in enrolment payments, N89.511m relating to store purchases and N17.422m in diesel advances.

The application further identified financial management and control deficiencies involving NASSCO, including questioned expenditure amounting to approximately N2.553bn.

Taken together, the figures form the basis of SERAP’s allegation that more than N78.8bn in expenditure associated with federal cash-transfer and social protection programmes requires proper explanation and investigation.

The organisation is seeking to establish the circumstances surrounding the transactions, the explanations offered by the relevant institutions and whether any subsequent investigations or corrective measures have been undertaken.

It maintained that the distinction between an audit query and a proven case of financial wrongdoing was important, noting that the findings could relate to documentation failures, breaches of financial procedures, actual losses or other forms of irregularity.

SERAP argued that the distinction did not, however, remove the government’s obligation to provide answers and account for public expenditure, particularly where the money was appropriated for programmes intended to protect vulnerable households against poverty and economic hardship.

The organisation further placed the experiences of beneficiaries at the centre of its legal argument, noting that cash-transfer programmes were designed to provide financial assistance to eligible households to help them meet basic needs and cope with economic difficulties.

It said the government’s obligation was not satisfied by merely announcing beneficiary targets or making budgetary allocations without ensuring that the funds were properly administered and reached those entitled to receive them.

SERAP argued that the state was required to establish and maintain effective systems for identifying eligible beneficiaries, authorising payments, keeping accurate records, reconciling transactions, monitoring expenditure and investigating discrepancies.

It said failures in these systems could undermine the effectiveness of social protection programmes and potentially deprive vulnerable households of assistance intended to support their livelihoods.

The organisation, however, clarified that the audit findings did not establish that every household covered by the programmes failed to receive assistance or that all the questioned funds were diverted or lost.

Rather, it wants the court to examine whether the government can produce reliable evidence showing how the funds were administered and whether any identified deficiencies affected beneficiaries’ access to the assistance allocated to them.

SERAP is also seeking appropriate remedies for individuals whose rights are established to have been adversely affected by the alleged failures.

Human rights obligations

The organisation’s principal legal argument is that accountability in the management of public resources has direct implications for the enjoyment of human rights, particularly where the funds are allocated to programmes designed to provide social and economic protection.

It is relying on Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises the right to social security.

SERAP argued that the right goes beyond the formal establishment of welfare programmes and requires governments to take reasonable measures to ensure that resources allocated to such programmes are protected and that eligible beneficiaries can access the assistance provided for them.

It also invoked Article 11 of the ICESCR, which recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing.

The organisation maintained that cash transfers could form part of the government’s efforts to help economically vulnerable citizens meet their basic needs.

It argued that where substantial resources allocated for such purposes were not properly accounted for or delivered, and the government failed to take effective corrective measures, the circumstances could raise questions about the country’s obligations under the right to an adequate standard of living.

SERAP further relied on Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which recognises the right of all peoples to economic, social and cultural development.

It contended that the right to development could not be separated from the manner in which public resources allocated to welfare and social protection programmes were administered.

• How FG selects beneficiaries for N50,000 relief
• SERAP drags FG to ECOWAS court over N78.8bn cash transfer
• W’Bank: FG pays N658.9bn to 10.46m poor households

According to the organisation, the government’s obligation is not fulfilled merely by establishing institutions or announcing social investment programmes, but also by ensuring that the resources allocated to them are transparently and responsibly managed.

It also cited Article 1 of the African Charter, which requires member states to recognise the rights protected by the Charter and adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them.

SERAP argued that appropriate administrative, financial and accountability mechanisms formed part of the measures required to protect resources allocated to the fulfilment of those rights.

It maintained that where public funds were appropriated for programmes intended to support vulnerable households, failures to account for the resources could raise questions about the government’s ability to fulfil its human rights obligations.

The organisation, however, clarified that it was not arguing that every accounting irregularity automatically amounted to a human rights violation.

It said the court would need to consider the audit findings alongside the government’s response, the population intended to benefit from the programmes, the adequacy of investigations and corrective measures, and any established impairment of protected rights.

The application also relies on the United Nations Convention against Corruption, particularly Article 9, which provides for transparency and accountability in public financial management.

The provision addresses measures relating to public budgets, expenditure reporting, accounting and auditing systems, risk management and internal controls.

SERAP argued that the convention was relevant to the Auditor-General’s findings on payments allegedly made without prepayment audits, expenditure without adequate supporting documents and transfers that could not be sufficiently authenticated or reconciled.

It maintained that where such deficiencies were identified, the government was required to take appropriate steps to establish what happened, determine whether public funds were lost or improperly spent, remedy any established loss and strengthen the systems that failed.

The organisation clarified that it was not asking the ECOWAS Court to determine criminal liability under the convention but was relying on it as a framework for assessing Nigeria’s obligations to ensure accountability and sound management of public resources.

SERAP also cited Article 21 of the African Charter, which protects peoples’ rights over their wealth and natural resources and provides for lawful recovery in cases of spoliation.

It acknowledged that the provision principally concerns wealth and natural resources and that not every instance of public financial mismanagement would amount to spoliation.

However, it relied on the provision as a supporting argument in circumstances where evidence establishes that public resources belonging to the people have been diverted or withheld from their intended public purposes.

The organisation further cited academic works by Kolawole Olaniyan, including Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, published in 2014, and Ownership of Proceeds of Corruption in International Law, published in 2023.

The publications were relied upon as persuasive academic authorities on the relationship between corruption, human rights, public resources, accountability and effective remedies.

SERAP’s broader argument is that public financial management is not merely a technical matter for accountants and auditors but can also engage the state’s human rights obligations where public resources are allocated to the fulfilment of protected rights.

Previous demand to Tinubu

Before instituting the action, SERAP said it issued a public statement and wrote to President Bola Tinubu and relevant authorities on September 5, 2026, demanding action on the Auditor-General’s findings.

The organisation requested that the government account for the questioned expenditure, publish relevant audit trails, investigate the identified transactions and recover any public funds established to have been improperly spent or diverted.

It also sought appropriate action against individuals whose responsibility could be established through admissible evidence.

The letter, signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, specifically requested records relating to the reported N33.751bn transfers, including beneficiary information, payment and verification records, authorisations and reconciliation documents.

It also demanded an explanation for the absence of relevant REMITA records identified in the audit findings.

According to the application, the period allowed for the government to take action elapsed without sufficient measures being taken to address the concerns raised.

SERAP said it intended to rely on its correspondence and any responses received to establish the extent of the government’s accounting, investigation, recovery and remedial actions.

However, the material presented in the application does not establish the full nature of any government response or provide the outcome of a completed investigation into the questioned transactions.

The organisation is consequently seeking answers to questions concerning whether the relevant agencies have reconciled the payments with verified beneficiary records, whether they can account for expenditure for which supporting documents were not provided and whether the required prepayment audits were conducted.

It also wants to know whether any funds have been recovered and whether individuals or institutions have been held responsible following due process.

SERAP maintained that the answers were important not only to the proceedings before the ECOWAS Court but also to public confidence in the administration of social protection programmes.

It argued that the government’s obligations continued after the publication of an audit report and included establishing the whereabouts and use of questioned funds, verifying beneficiaries, investigating unsupported transactions, recovering improperly spent public money where established and strengthening internal controls.

The organisation contended that leaving audit findings unanswered could not, by itself, satisfy the government’s accountability obligations.

Reliefs sought

SERAP is asking the ECOWAS Court to declare that failures to safeguard, verify and account for public funds allocated to cash transfers and social protection programmes are incompatible with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations where such failures impair, or create a risk of impairing, beneficiaries’ access to the intended assistance.

It is also seeking an order directing the Federal Government, through relevant ministries, departments and agencies, including NCTO and NASSCO, to provide a “comprehensive and verifiable account” of the questioned funds.

The requested account is expected to include payment records, beneficiary details, verification documents, authorisations and reconciliation records.

The organisation further wants the court to direct the government to conduct a “prompt, thorough, independent and effective investigation” into the irregularities identified by the Auditor-General.

It is seeking the recovery and remittance to the public treasury of any funds established to have been improperly spent, diverted, misapplied or lost.

Other reliefs include appropriate administrative, civil or criminal action, in accordance with due process, against any government official, contractor, beneficiary, intermediary or other person whose responsibility is established by admissible evidence.

SERAP is also asking for stronger safeguards covering beneficiary identification and verification, payment authorisation, prepayment audits, record-keeping, reconciliation, monitoring, internal controls and independent oversight.

It wants measures to ensure that eligible households do not lose access to assistance because of mismanagement or inadequate financial controls.

The organisation is further seeking the publication of sufficient information concerning investigations, accounting, recoveries and remedial measures, subject to legitimate privacy, security and other legal protections.

It also wants effective remedies for individuals whose rights are established to have been adversely affected by the alleged failures.

In addition, SERAP is asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government and its agencies from administering or disbursing social protection funds without adequate accountability and oversight mechanisms.