•House of Representatives
A civil society group and three other plaintiffs have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the alleged procedure adopted by the House of Representatives in passing the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police in Nigeria.
The suit with number FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026 was filed pursuant to Order 3, Rules 2 and 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
It was gathered that the suit has not been assigned to a judge as of Friday, reports Daily Trust.
The plaintiffs, Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Speak-Out Africa, Ushakase Agwa and Abdullahi A. Sani, are asking the court to declare the purported passage of the State Police Bill unconstitutional, null and of no effect.
Abuja School of Social and Political Thought is a Nigerian policy and human rights organisation comprising legal practitioners, academics and policy professionals committed to the promotion of the rule of law and constitutional governance.
The suit, filed against the House of Representatives and its Speaker, is anchored on the interpretation of Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The plaintiffs contend that a bill seeking to alter any provision of the Constitution requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting, and that such approval must be established through actual voting by individual members rather than a voice vote.
They are also asking the court to determine whether the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority can be satisfied without a clause-by-clause reading of the provisions of the amendment bill.
The plaintiffs specifically challenged the purported passage of the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, relating to the establishment of State Police, by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2026.
According to the originating summons dated August 21, 2026, and filed by their counsel, Sam Amadi of Logosphere Attorneys, Abuja; the plaintiffs alleged that the bill purported to alter several constitutional provisions, including Sections 84, 89, 121, 124, 129, 153, 157, 158, 160, 197, 201, 202, 204, 214, 215 and 216, among others.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the provisions of the Constitution governing constitutional amendments require the House to approve such alterations by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
They are further seeking a declaration that approval of a constitutional amendment must be determined through clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed legislation and actual votes of members, rather than a voice vote.
The plaintiffs also want the court to declare that any constitutional amendment bill passed without express clause-by-clause consideration is null and void, and that a bill passed without an actual count of the votes securing the required two-thirds majority is similarly invalid.
In another relief, they are challenging Order 11, Rule 2 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives, to the extent that it allegedly permits the passage of a bill through voice vote, arguing that the provision is inconsistent with the Constitution.
They are also asking the court to specifically declare the purported passage of the State Police Bill on July 23 unconstitutional, null and of no effect because, according to them, it was passed without clause-by-clause reading of its provisions and without an actual two-thirds vote of members.
We’re challenging procedures, not bill – Plaintiffs
The case comes after the National Assembly passed the State Police constitutional amendment at the federal level, with the Senate passing the bill on June 24, 2026, and the House of Representatives passing it on July 23, 2026.
The amendment process subsequently requires consideration by the State Houses of Assembly.
The plaintiffs’ challenge, however, centres not on the merits of establishing State Police but on whether the House complied with the constitutional procedure for altering the nation’s supreme law.
They are asking the court to determine whether the legislative process adopted by the House satisfied the requirements of Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the Constitution.
The originating summon was supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit.
In the affidavit deposed to by Ushakashe Agwa, the communications officer of Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, the plaintiffs said they became concerned about the legislative process after reading newspaper reports and watching video clips of the House proceedings during the passage of the bill on July 23, 2026.
They alleged that the Speaker, who presided over the proceedings, did not allow the bill to be read and considered clause by clause before it was purportedly passed through a voice vote.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the procedure adopted by the House complied with the constitutional requirements for altering the 1999 Constitution.
The affidavit, which was sworn to at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on September 10, 2026, stated that the plaintiffs – described as politically conscious Nigerian citizens – sought to ascertain how their representatives voted during the plenary consideration of the bill.
The plaintiffs also expressed concern that further legislative action could be taken on the bill while their challenge remains before the court.
The plaintiffs consequently urged the court to halt further action on the bill and direct the House of Representatives to follow what they described as the constitutionally prescribed procedure.
They contended that the alleged manner in which the bill was passed was unconstitutional and undermined the rule of law and constitutional democracy.
Minority Caucus’ opposition
It would be recalled that the Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives had earlier on July 23, 2026, staged a walkout during plenary in protest against the passage of the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police Services across Nigeria.
The opposition lawmakers insisted that their action was not a rejection of state police but a protest against what they described as violations of constitutional provisions and parliamentary procedures during the bill’s consideration.
Speaking to journalists after the walkout, Minority Leader Fredrick Agbedi accused the House leadership of disregarding the provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution while handling the amendment process.
Agbedi argued that constitutional amendment bills require clause-by-clause consideration and approval by a two-thirds majority of members, stressing that the procedure adopted for the state police bill failed to meet those requirements.
According to the lawmakers, the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, only read the long title of the bill and subjected it to a voice vote without allowing detailed consideration of its individual clauses.
But the House of Representatives at the time disclosed that the amendment bill was passed with the support of 311 lawmakers.
Speaker Abbas disclosed that 276 members voted physically, while 35 others participated virtually.
The proposed legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to Provide for the Establishment of State Police Services and for Related Matters (HB. 2797),” seeks to create state-controlled police formations as part of broader efforts to strengthen security and policing across the country.
‘Two-thirds not established’
The counsel for the plaintiffs, Dr Amadi, argued that a video of the passage of the State Police Bill on the floor of the House showed that there was no clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and the voice vote was not counted to show who voted for or against the proposed amendment.
When asked to comment on the silence of the Constitution on whether the members should be physically present or not, the counsel stated, “The argument is that: first, you have to establish that two-thirds, whether they voted electronically or they voted in person, have voted for the bill. The evidence we showed in the video that’s attached to the report is that there was no voting. It was a voice vote.”
We’re not aware of suit – Reps
When contacted, the deputy spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Philip Agbese, said the House was not aware of the suit.
Agbese said, “The House is not aware of any such suit and has not been served with any court processes. I am only just reading about it from your message.
“The principle of separation of powers is fundamental to our democracy. The courts cannot properly be used to stop the National Assembly from performing its constitutional functions.
“The allegation that the House failed to follow its own rules in passing the State Police bill is completely without foundation.
“The 10th House complied fully with its Standing Orders and the Constitution in the consideration and passage of the bill.”
