A Federal High Court in Abuja has been asked to nullify the House of Representatives' passage of a constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police. The plaintiffs, including the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Speak-Out Africa, Ushakase Agwa, and Abdullahi A. Sani, argue that the House did not follow the required constitutional procedure. They claim that the lawmakers did not establish the required two-thirds majority through an identifiable vote by individual members. The suit, numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026, was filed against the House of Representatives and its Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas.
The plaintiffs are challenging the passage of the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, which relates to the establishment of State Police. They argue that the required two-thirds approval must be established through actual voting by lawmakers and cannot simply be inferred from a voice vote. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the passage by the House on July 23, 2026, unconstitutional, null and void. They also want the court to determine whether the constitutional requirement can be satisfied without clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed amendments.
According to the plaintiffs, reports and video recordings of the House proceedings during the consideration and passage of the State Police Bill on July 23 showed that the Speaker did not allow the bill to be considered clause by clause before it was purportedly passed through a voice vote. They alleged that the Speaker's action did not demonstrate an actual vote establishing the required majority. The plaintiffs' counsel, Dr Sam Amadi, argued that the central issue was not whether lawmakers participated physically or electronically, but whether the required two-thirds support could be demonstrated.
The House of Representatives has maintained that it complied fully with its Standing Orders and the Constitution, saying the bill received the support of 311 lawmakers, comprising 276 members who participated physically and 35 who participated virtually. However, the plaintiffs contend that the required two-thirds approval must be established through actual voting by lawmakers. They are asking the court to stop further legislative action on the bill pending determination of the suit and to direct the House to follow what they describe as the constitutionally prescribed procedure.
The plaintiffs' action was prompted by concerns about the passage of the bill, which they claim was done without express clause-by-clause consideration and without an established two-thirds majority. They argue that allowing the process to continue despite the alleged procedural defects could undermine the rule of law and constitutional governance. The suit is not against the establishment of State Police itself but against the procedure allegedly adopted by the House in passing the constitutional amendment.
Minority lawmakers had raised similar concerns during the passage of the bill on July 23. The lawmakers staged a walkout, insisting that their action did not amount to opposition to State Police but was a protest against what they described as breaches of constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Minority Leader Fredrick Agbedi accused the House leadership of disregarding Section 9(2) of the Constitution in handling the amendment.
The court will determine whether the House complied with Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution, particularly the requirement for the prescribed majority when altering constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs want the court to declare that any constitutional amendment passed without express clause-by-clause consideration and without an established two-thirds majority is invalid. They are also challenging Order 11, Rule 2 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives, which permits the passage of a bill through a voice vote.
Key points
- The plaintiffs argue that the required two-thirds approval must be established through actual voting by lawmakers and cannot simply be inferred from a voice vote.
- The House of Representatives claims that the bill received the support of 311 lawmakers, but the plaintiffs dispute this.
- The court action follows a similar protest by members of the House Minority Caucus during the passage of the bill on July 23.
