A civil society group and three other plaintiffs have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the procedure allegedly adopted by the House of Representatives in passing the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police in Nigeria.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the House complied with the constitutional requirements for altering the 1999 Constitution, including the applicable voting threshold and the procedure for considering and approving the proposed amendments.
The suit, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026, challenges the purported passage of the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, relating to State Police, by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2026.
The plaintiffs’ case focuses on the legislative process rather than the merits of establishing State Police itself.
Trust Radio
Plaintiffs Question Use of Voice Vote
In their originating summons, the plaintiffs alleged that the House did not undertake the required clause-by-clause consideration of the bill before it was declared passed.
They also questioned whether a voice vote was sufficient to establish that the constitutionally required two-thirds majority had been secured.
According to their court filing, the constitutional amendment process requires the relevant provisions to be considered in accordance with the applicable legislative rules and the Constitution’s requirements for altering the country’s supreme law.
The plaintiffs are seeking judicial clarification on whether the procedure followed by the House satisfied those requirements.
They are also challenging a provision of the House’s Standing Rules to the extent that it allegedly permits a voice vote in circumstances where the Constitution requires a demonstrable two-thirds majority.
These remain allegations and legal arguments presented by the plaintiffs. The court has not, on the information reported, determined whether the House’s procedure was unconstitutional.
What the Plaintiffs Want the Court to Decide
The plaintiffs are asking the court to make several declarations concerning the constitutional requirements for passing amendment bills.
Among other issues, they want the court to determine whether:
The House was required to consider the proposed constitutional alterations clause by clause.
The required two-thirds majority must be established through an actual count of members’ votes.
A constitutional amendment bill can lawfully be declared passed without the prescribed voting threshold being demonstrably met.
The procedure allegedly adopted on July 23 complied with the applicable provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
They are also asking the court to declare the purported passage of the State Police amendment invalid if it finds that the required constitutional procedure was not followed.
The legal arguments will require the court to examine the relevant constitutional provisions, the House’s rules and the record of the proceedings in question.
How the State Police Amendment Process Works
The establishment of State Police requires constitutional change because policing arrangements and the constitutional responsibilities of the police are governed by provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
Under Section 9, an amendment to the Constitution generally requires approval by at least two-thirds of all members of each chamber of the National Assembly. The process for altering provisions specified under Section 9(3) requires a higher threshold.
A constitutional amendment bill must also secure the approval of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly before it can become law.
The legislative process therefore involves more than approval by one chamber of the National Assembly.
The court challenge concerns whether the House of Representatives complied with the relevant requirements at the stage when it considered the State Police bill.
National Assembly and State Police Debate
The State Police proposal has featured prominently in Nigeria’s national security debate, particularly amid calls for policing arrangements that respond more directly to local security conditions.
Supporters of decentralised policing have argued that state-level structures could improve local intelligence, shorten response times and strengthen community-level security.
Questions about constitutional safeguards, funding, accountability, operational independence and the potential for political interference have also featured in discussions about implementation.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit does not ask the court to resolve all those policy questions. Instead, it seeks a determination of whether the legislative procedure used to advance the constitutional amendment complied with the law.
That distinction is important: a court may examine whether a bill was lawfully passed without deciding whether the policy itself is desirable.
What Happens Next?
The suit was reported as not having been assigned to a judge as of the latest information available in the report published on September 28, 2026.
Trust Radio
The next steps will depend on the court’s handling of the case, including the assignment of a judge and any subsequent directions concerning the parties’ submissions.
The outcome could clarify the procedural standards applicable to constitutional amendments considered by the House of Representatives.
Until the court determines the issues raised, the allegations about the legislative process should not be treated as established findings of constitutional violations.