Recent revelations by Hon. Ibrahim Usman Auyo, a member of the House of Representatives from Jigawa State, have sparked major controversy across Nigeria’s political landscape. In a widely circulated video, Auyo alleged that federal lawmakers are often required to pay between ₦1million and ₦3million before they can present motions, bills, or petitions on the floor of the National Assembly. According to Auyo, this financial hurdle detracts from the core purpose of legislation, which should be centered on public interest rather than personal or political gain.
Auyo’s statements were made in response to criticism from his constituents regarding the effectiveness of legislative processes. He denied claims that lawmakers present motions based solely on the demands of their constituents. Instead, he suggested that the practice of paying to present legislative proposals has become institutionalized.
As he explained, “Even the bills and petitions are paid for. You have to pay ₦3 million, ₦2 million, or ₦1 million for it to be read on the floor of the House. After you read the bill, you have to lobby over 360 lawmakers to support that the bill be considered”.
The allegations by Auyo are not unprecedented. Nigeria’s National Assembly has long been dogged by accusations of corruption, budget padding, and monetization of legislative actions. Instances of universities and government agencies allegedly being coerced to pay millions in ‘speed money’ for favorable budget allocations have surfaced repeatedly.
Past scandals, such as the infamous 2005 bribery case involving the Ministry of Education and principal officers of the National Assembly, have reinforced public perceptions of systemic rot within legislative corridors.
In response to Auyo’s claims, the House of Representatives quickly issued a rebuttal, labeling his statements as both baseless and irresponsible.
Deputy House spokesperson Phillip Agbese described the allegations as a reckless misrepresentation and insisted that legislative procedures are governed by the constitution and standing orders, which should guarantee transparency and equal access for all lawmakers without any financial barriers.
Agbese suggested the lawmaker’s comments stemmed from ignorance and emphasized that there is no official requirement for payment before motions, bills, or petitions can be presented.
Civil society organizations have expressed a mix of alarm and recognition in reaction to the allegations. Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Rafsanjani, noted that, while motions and bills are not supposed to be commercialized, Nigeria’s entrenched corruption makes such allegations plausible.
Rafsanjani recalled previous instances where financial inducements were reportedly extended by the executive arm to lawmakers, particularly when specific legislation was prioritized by those in power. He cautioned that this kind of systemic corruption undermines both the integrity of the legislative process and public trust in governance.
For many Nigerians, Auyo’s revelations reinforce existing doubts about the authenticity and meritocratic nature of parliamentary proceedings. The idea that lawmakers may have to “lobby” or even pay to get their voices heard on critical national issues erodes confidence in representative democracy.
These claims feed into a narrative where legislative debates potentially become avenues for personal enrichment or political maneuvering rather than a means of pursuing collective welfare.
The implications of such allegations are grave, both legally and ethically. Transparency International and local anti-corruption agencies have often called for greater scrutiny of parliamentary processes, including real-time investigation of claims like Auyo’s.
Should any evidence of monetization of motions or bills emerge, it could lead to legal prosecutions. For now, however, the episode highlights the importance of ongoing reform within Nigeria’s legislative system—to ensure that representation is driven by merit, public interest, and ethical standards, rather than hidden payments and patronage.