A civil society organisation and three other plaintiffs have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the procedure adopted by the House of Representatives in passing the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police Services in Nigeria.
The suit, filed as FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026, specifically challenges the purported passage of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, by the House on July 23, 2026. The plaintiffs are questioning whether lawmakers followed the constitutional procedure required for altering the nation’s supreme law.
The case was instituted pursuant to Order 3, Rules 2 and 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019. As of the latest report, the suit had not yet been assigned to a judge.
The plaintiffs, represented by counsel from Logosphere Attorneys, Abuja, are seeking declarations concerning the constitutional requirements for the consideration and passage of constitutional amendment bills.
Among other things, they want the court to determine whether such legislation must be considered and voted on clause by clause, rather than being passed through a voice vote. They also argue that the required two-thirds majority should be established through an actual vote and count of members rather than by a general voice vote.
The plaintiffs further want the court to declare unconstitutional any amendment bill passed without express clause-by-clause consideration or without an ascertainable two-thirds majority.
They are also challenging the relevant provision of the House of Representatives’ Standing Rules to the extent that it allegedly permits constitutional amendment bills to be passed through voice voting. According to the plaintiffs, such a procedure cannot override requirements contained in the Constitution.
The suit is focused on the procedure used to pass the bill, rather than whether State Police should be established in Nigeria. The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the House complied with Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution during its consideration of the proposed amendment.
Their challenge follows controversy that surrounded the House proceedings on July 23. During the sitting, opposition lawmakers staged a walkout, alleging that parliamentary procedure had not been followed.
Reports from the proceedings said Speaker Tajudeen Abbas put the proposal to a voice vote rather than taking the bill’s 26 clauses individually. Members of the minority caucus attempted to raise objections before the vote, but the proceedings continued.
However, another account of the proceedings reported that 311 lawmakers voted in favour of the constitutional alteration, a figure described as meeting the required two-thirds threshold. The disagreement therefore centres partly on the method through which the vote was conducted and whether that method satisfied constitutional and parliamentary requirements.
The proposed State Police amendment had already passed through both chambers of the National Assembly. The Senate passed the bill on June 24, while the House passed it on July 23.
The National Assembly subsequently transmitted the State Police Bill to the 36 State Houses of Assembly for consideration. The Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, said the transmission was made pursuant to Section 9 of the Constitution, which requires approval from at least two-thirds of the state legislatures for a constitutional alteration.
The bill proposes a dual policing structure involving the Federal Police Service and State Police Services. Under the proposed framework, state police would operate within their respective states, while the Federal Police would retain responsibilities for areas including national security, terrorism, interstate crimes and other matters specified by the constitutional amendment.
The proposed arrangement has generated wider public debate, particularly over the potential implications of state-controlled policing for human rights, political neutrality, elections and security.
The plaintiffs are now asking the Federal High Court to halt further action on the bill pending determination of the constitutional questions raised in their suit. They contend that allowing the process to continue despite the alleged procedural irregularities could undermine the integrity of the constitutional amendment process.
The court’s eventual consideration of the case could therefore have implications for the next stage of the State Police proposal, particularly if the plaintiffs’ challenge results in judicial findings concerning the validity of the House’s procedure.
For now, however, the allegations contained in the suit remain matters for judicial determination. The National Assembly has maintained that the State Police Bill has been transmitted to the state legislatures in accordance with the constitutional amendment process.
