Nigeria’s proposed State Police constitutional amendment is facing a new court battle — not over whether state policing is desirable, but over how the House of Representatives passed the amendment. The plaintiffs argue that changing the Constitution requires verifiable votes and clause-by-clause consideration rather than a voice vote, potentially placing the legislative procedure itself under judicial scrutiny.
A civil society organisation and three other plaintiffs have instituted an action at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the procedure adopted by the House of Representatives in passing the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police Services.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026, was filed by the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Speak-Out Africa, Ushakase Agwa and Abdullahi A. Sani.
They are asking the court to declare the purported passage of the State Police Bill unconstitutional and invalid.
The plaintiffs’ case centres on Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution and the procedure required when the National Assembly seeks to alter the Constitution.
They contend that constitutional amendments require approval by the constitutionally prescribed majority and argue that such approval must be capable of being objectively established through actual votes.
The plaintiffs allege that the House passed the State Police amendment through a voice vote without conducting the clause-by-clause consideration they believe the Constitution requires.
They are also challenging provisions of the House Standing Rules to the extent that those rules may permit a constitutional amendment to be approved through voice voting.
The Bill was passed by the Senate on June 24 and by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2026, before being transmitted to state Houses of Assembly as part of the constitutional amendment process.
Importantly, the plaintiffs say they are not challenging the merits of State Police itself.
Their case is directed at whether the legislative procedure adopted by the House satisfied the constitutional threshold for changing Nigeria’s supreme law.
The House of Representatives disputes the allegations.
Deputy spokesperson Philip Agbese said the House had not been formally served with the suit when contacted and maintained that lawmakers complied with both the Constitution and the chamber’s Standing Orders.
The House has also stated that 311 lawmakers supported the amendment, comprising 276 members who voted physically and 35 who participated virtually.
The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the issue is whether the required votes were formally taken and recorded during the constitutional amendment proceedings.
As of the latest report, the suit had yet to be assigned to a judge.
The litigation could become an important constitutional case because its outcome may clarify the procedural standard the National Assembly must follow when altering provisions of the Constitution.
READ MORE ON LEGALLINKZ:
Akinboro SAN Examines State and Local Government Autonomy
SOURCE:
Trust Radio — State Police Bill Faces Legal Battle
