A prominent civil society organization has initiated legal proceedings against Nigeria's state governors and the Federal Capital Territory minister, demanding transparency over the use of substantial public funds designated for security purposes.

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project took the matter to the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, citing mounting concerns about persistent violence and instability throughout the country despite massive annual allocations for security operations. The legal challenge comes as communities continue experiencing deadly attacks, with recent mass casualties reported in Benue State highlighting the severity of the crisis.

According to the advocacy group's Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, who announced the lawsuit on Sunday, the organization is requesting judicial intervention to force government officials to reveal detailed information about security fund management since May 29, 2023. The suit, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/95/2026, names multiple state governors alongside FCT Minister Nyesom Wike as respondents.

The legal filing requests court orders compelling these officials to publicly disclose comprehensive records showing how security allocations have been distributed, what projects received funding, their current status, and future plans for enhancing protective infrastructure. Such transparency, the group argues, remains essential given the constitutional duty of government officials to safeguard citizens.

Financial records indicate that approximately N400 billion flows annually through these security channels nationwide. Budget documents for 2026 show at least ten state governors have earmarked around N140 billion collectively for similar purposes in the upcoming fiscal year, according to information presented in the lawsuit.

The organization's legal team, comprising Oluwakemi Agunbiade, Andrew Nwankwo, and Valentina Adegoke, contends that constitutional principles fundamentally reject opaque handling of taxpayer money. They maintain that democratic governance requires openness, particularly when public safety hangs in the balance.

"The Nigerian Constitution's architects never envisioned such secretive deployment of state resources," the advocacy group emphasized, noting that transparency strengthens citizen oversight and reinforces democratic institutions.

Beyond constitutional arguments, the lawsuit highlights practical dangers associated with financial opacity. Without proper scrutiny, the risk of embezzlement, misappropriation, or outright diversion of these substantial sums increases significantly, potentially explaining why security conditions have deteriorated despite generous funding.

The legal challenge draws support from a Supreme Court ruling that extended the Freedom of Information Act's reach across federal territories, including state-level records. This precedent, the organization notes, dismantles previous claims by governors that such disclosure requirements did not apply to their administrations.

While acknowledging that certain operational details merit protection for legitimate security reasons, the group insists no legal justification exists for concealing basic expenditure information. The current lack of accountability, they argue, betrays public trust and contradicts both domestic legal standards and international best practices.

However, the lawsuit's timing carries particular weight given Nigeria's recent economic classification. The World Bank now categorizes the country among fragile and conflict-affected situations, placing it alongside nations like Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Libya, Mali, and Sudan. This designation reflects how insecurity fuels extreme poverty, food shortages, and inadequate access to education and healthcare.

The international financial institution's assessment paints a concerning picture: millions of Nigerians currently face acute hunger, while fundamental gaps in social services continue undermining human development prospects. These challenges, compounded by violence and instability, have created what the World Bank describes as a sobering outlook for poverty reduction efforts.

For vulnerable populations already struggling with economic hardship, the human cost of ineffective security measures extends beyond immediate physical danger. Communities displaced by violence lose livelihoods, children miss schooling, and families sink deeper into poverty cycles that become increasingly difficult to escape.

The advocacy organization maintains that elected officials treating security allocations as discretionary personal funds represents a serious constitutional violation. Such practices, they contend, directly contradict the principle that public servants hold these resources in trust for citizens' benefit.

Court officials have not yet scheduled a hearing date for the case. Meanwhile, the legal action adds pressure on state executives to demonstrate tangible results from years of substantial security spending, particularly as violence continues claiming lives across multiple regions.

This lawsuit represents a broader push for governmental accountability in Nigeria, where civil society organizations increasingly use litigation to enforce transparency requirements. The outcome could establish important precedents regarding public access to information about how officials deploy taxpayer funds intended for collective safety and welfare.