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 against the House of Representatives and its Speaker. The case has reportedly not yet been assigned to a judge.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the purported passage of the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, unconstitutional, null and of no effect, arguing that the House did not follow the procedure required by the 1999 Constitution for altering constitutional provisions.
Their challenge is focused on the legislative process rather than the merits of establishing State Police in Nigeria.
The plaintiffs contend that Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the Constitution require constitutional amendments to receive the prescribed majority through actual voting by lawmakers.
They are specifically questioning whether the required two-thirds majority could be established through the procedure adopted by the House and whether the proposed amendment should have undergone clause-by-clause consideration before being put to a vote.
The suit relates to the House’s consideration of the State Police Bill on July 23, 2026. During that sitting, the House passed the proposal after 311 lawmakers voted in support of it. Channels Television reported that the House used electronic and virtual voting, while members of the Minority Caucus staged a walkout and subsequently raised objections to the procedure.
The plaintiffs, however, allege that the bill was not considered clause by clause before its purported passage and that the process did not provide an actual count demonstrating that the constitutionally required two-thirds majority had been obtained.
They are also challenging a provision in the Standing Rules of the House that they argue permits bills to be passed through voice voting, contending that such a provision cannot override constitutional requirements governing constitutional amendments.
Among the reliefs sought is a declaration that any constitutional amendment passed without the required clause-by-clause consideration and the necessary voting threshold should be regarded as invalid.
The plaintiffs are further asking the court to halt further legislative action on the State Police Bill while the legal challenge is being determined.
Their case comes as the proposed State Police constitutional amendment has moved to the next stage of the amendment process. The Senate passed the bill on June 24, 2026, while the House of Representatives passed its version on July 23. The National Assembly subsequently transmitted the bill to the 36 State Houses of Assembly on September 16 for consideration and approval.
Under Section 9 of the Constitution, a constitutional alteration passed by the National Assembly requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly before the process can proceed to the next stage.
The legal challenge therefore comes at a significant point in the proposed constitutional amendment process, with state legislatures now considering the State Police proposal.
The plaintiffs maintain that their action is intended to ensure that any alteration to Nigeria’s Constitution is carried out strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Constitution.
The case could consequently require the Federal High Court to examine the legislative procedure adopted by the House and determine whether the process used to pass the State Police Bill complied with the constitutional requirements for amending the nation’s supreme law.
Post a Comment