The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has filed a lawsuit against the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to stop the proposed salary increment for political and public office holders across Nigeria.
The legal action, filed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, challenges RMAFC’s recent proposal to increase the remuneration of the President, Vice President, state governors, their deputies, and federal and state lawmakers. The commission had justified the move last month, describing the current salaries of these officials as “paltry.”
In its court filing, SERAP is asking for a declaration that the proposed increment is “unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law as it violates the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) and RMAFC’s enabling Act.”
The organisation is also seeking “an order of injunction restraining RMAFC, its agents and privies from taking any step to review upward the salaries of the president, vice president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria.”
Additionally, SERAP is requesting “an order directing RMAFC, its agents to review downward the salaries and allowances of the president, vice president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria to reflect the economic realities in the country.”
“Restraining the commission from arbitrarily increasing the salaries of the president, vice president, governors, their deputies, and lawmakers would serve legitimate public interests,” SERAP argued.
The organisation maintains that RMAFC does not possess unlimited powers to raise salaries for political office holders. “The RMAFC’s constitutional and statutory mandates do not imply the unrestrained powers to increase the salaries of the president, vice president, governors, their deputies, and lawmakers,” the suit noted.
According to SERAP, reducing the salaries of these top officials would align with the Nigerian Constitution, the country’s international human rights obligations, and the current economic conditions.
The suit, filed by SERAP’s legal team—Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, and Andrew Nwankwo—states in part: “When the exercise of RMAFC’s constitutional and statutory mandates clashes with Nigerians’ fundamental rights, the public interests in upholding these rights ought to prevail.”
It also described the proposed pay raise as “a gross violation” of the Nigerian Constitution, particularly the provisions under Chapter 2 concerning the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, and those under Chapter 4 on fundamental rights, including Section 42 on equality and non-discrimination.
“The RMAFC should properly discharge its constitutional and statutory mandates to ‘monitor the accruals to and disbursement of revenue from the Federation Account and ‘advise the Federal and State governments on fiscal efficiency and methods by which their revenue can be increased,’” the suit stated.
SERAP criticised the commission for allegedly prioritising the interests of political office holders over the needs of ordinary Nigerians. “The imminent pay rise for political and public office holders in Nigeria… is a gross misuse of the RMAFC’s constitutional and statutory mandates.”
“The RMAFC has improperly and incorrectly exercised its constitutional and statutory mandates by increasing the salaries of political office holders. The proposed salary increase is a violation of the provisions of the Nigerian constitution, the country’s human rights obligations and the legal doctrine of reasonableness,” SERAP added.
It further argued that raising political salaries amid widespread poverty and economic hardship was unjustifiable. “RMAFC cannot legitimately or justifiably increase the salaries of the president, vice president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers at a time when over 133 million Nigerians are poor and several state governments are failing to pay salaries of workers and pensions.”
SERAP accused the commission of favouring political elites over the marginalised population. “RMAFC seems to act consistently to give advantage to political office holders over the interests of poor Nigerians.”
The organisation also urged the commission to prioritise cuts in excessive allowances and life pensions for former political office holders. “The RMAFC ought to prioritise cutting the excessive amounts yearly budgeted as allowances for political office holders and life pensions for former presidents, vice-presidents, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers.”
It warned that representative democracy, fairness, and equality would become meaningless if public funds continue to be diverted to serve a few at the top. “The idea of representative democracy, fairness and equality and non-discrimination would mean little if the salaries of political office holders are arbitrarily increased while millions of poor Nigerians continue to pass through harrowing times and watch their standards of living plummet.”
SERAP also highlighted the deteriorating public infrastructure and services, including erratic power supply, inadequate access to clean water, and poor healthcare, as further reasons the proposed salary increase is inappropriate.
The commission’s chairman, Mohammed Bello, had announced on August 18, 2025, that RMAFC was moving to adjust salaries, describing the current pay structure as outdated. He claimed that the new package would be “fair, realistic, and sustainable,” noting that the last comprehensive review of the allocation formula was conducted in 1992.
However, SERAP cited a June 4, 2021 ruling by Justice Chuka Austine Obiozor of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which ordered the RMAFC to reduce and rationalise lawmakers’ salaries and allowances in line with the nation’s economic realities. That judgment followed consolidated suits brought by individuals and civil society groups, including Mr. Monday Ubani, Mr. John Nwokwu, over 1,500 concerned Nigerians, BudgIT, Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE), and SERAP itself.
The group pointed out that under Sections 154(1), 156(3), and Paragraph 31, Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, members of the RMAFC are presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.
As of now, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the case.
