The House of Representatives’ passage of the constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police Services across Nigeria has run into a legal storm, with four plaintiffs asking the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja to nullify the exercise over the procedure allegedly adopted by the lawmakers.
The plaintiffs—Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Speak-Out Africa, Ushakase Agwa and Abdullahi A. Sani—insist that their challenge is not against State Police itself, but against the manner in which the House purportedly passed the constitutional amendment on July 10, 2026.
In suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026, filed on September 28, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the purported passage unconstitutional, null and of no effect. They contend that the House failed to subject the bill to the constitutionally required clause-by-clause consideration and voting, and instead relied on a voice vote without establishing through an actual count that the required two-thirds majority had been secured.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution, which prescribes a special procedure for constitutional alterations, including support by not less than two-thirds of the members of each chamber and subsequent approval by at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly.
The plaintiffs are specifically asking the court to determine whether the House complied with Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the Constitution. They are also challenging Order 11, Rule 2 of the House Standing Rules, to the extent that it allegedly permits a constitutional amendment bill to be passed by voice vote rather than by a procedure capable of establishing the constitutionally required majority.
The controversy goes back to the dramatic sitting of July 10, when the House approved HB. 2797, the bill seeking to alter the Constitution to provide for State Police Services. Contemporary reports confirm that the session was contentious, with Minority lawmakers staging a walkout and alleging breaches of constitutional and parliamentary procedure.
The Minority Caucus, led by Minority Leader Fredrick Agbedi, had argued that the bill’s individual provisions ought to have been considered and voted upon rather than subjected to what the lawmakers described as a voice vote. Reports from the sitting said the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, put the proposal to a voice vote after the minority caucus raised objections.
The House leadership, however, presented a different account of the exercise. Speaker Abbas announced that 311 lawmakers supported the bill—276 participating physically and 35 virtually—and the House proceeded on the basis that the required two-thirds threshold had been achieved.
It is that point that the plaintiffs now want the court to scrutinise.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Dr Sam Amadi of Logosphere Attorneys, argues that the central question is not simply whether enough lawmakers were available to constitute two-thirds, but whether the House actually demonstrated through a constitutionally valid voting process that the required majority voted for the alteration.
“The argument is that: First, you have to establish that two-thirds, whether they voted electronically or they voted in person, have voted for the bill,” Amadi said, according to the plaintiffs’ account. He maintained that the video evidence attached to their case showed a voice vote rather than an actual count.
The plaintiffs’ originating summons, dated August 21 and filed by Amadi, is supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Agwa. They said their concerns arose after reviewing media reports and video recordings of the July 23 proceedings and seeking to establish how individual lawmakers voted.
They are asking the court to stop further legislative action based on the disputed passage and direct the House to follow what they describe as the constitutionally prescribed procedure. They argue that allowing a constitutional amendment to proceed without satisfying the required procedure would undermine the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
The suit comes after the Senate and House advanced the State Police proposal at the federal level, with the Senate passing its version on June 24 and the House passing the bill on July 23. The process still requires consideration by the State Houses of Assembly, with constitutional alterations requiring approval by at least two-thirds of the states before completion of the prescribed process.
But the House is not accepting the allegation.
Deputy Spokesperson of the House, Philip Agbese, said the chamber was not aware of the suit and had not been served with any court process when contacted.
He insisted that the 10th House complied with both its Standing Orders and the Constitution in considering and passing the bill, describing the allegation of procedural violation as unfounded.
For now, therefore, the battle over State Police has shifted from whether Nigeria should have state-controlled police formations to whether the constitutional road taken by the House to approve them was itself constitutional.
And that distinction could make the Abuja court proceedings as consequential as the State Police proposal itself.
