Opposition lawmakers protest as Reps pass state police bill

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed an executive bill seeking to establish state police across the country after adopting the report of its Committee on Constitution Review, amid a walkout by members of the minority caucus. President Bola Tinubu had transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, […]

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed an executive bill seeking to establish state police across the country after adopting the report of its Committee on Constitution Review, amid a walkout by members of the minority caucus.

President Bola Tinubu had transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, to the House seeking constitutional approval for the establishment of state police services across the country.

The President said the proposed legislation seeks to amend the 1999 Constitution to provide the legal framework for the creation of state police as part of efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s security architecture.

The  chairman of the constitution review panel, Benjamin Kalu, while presenting a synopsis of the proposed constitutional amendment, explained that the amendment only provides the constitutional foundation for State Police, while detailed implementation issues, including recruitment, training, operational standards, funding, accountability and intergovernmental coordination would be addressed through subsequent legislation.

Following the presentation of the synopsis, the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, provided details of the lawmakers participating in the voting process.

He said 211 members physically present in the chamber were from the All Progressives Congress, while 65 members belonged to other political parties.

He added that 35 members participated virtually through the National Assembly’s electronic platform and declared their support for the bill.

According to him, the total number of members who had signed the attendance register and those who participated virtually stood at 311.

“If you add the total members who have signed our register, totalling 276, plus the 35 members that have joined us on the platform of the House, we have a total of 311 members,” Mr Tajudeen said.

He stressed that the constitutional requirement for the passage of the bill was two-thirds of the 360-member House, which translates to 240 members.

He said the report before the House contained 26 clauses, an explanatory memorandum and the long title of the bill.

During the consideration process, the Speaker merely read the long title of the bill and put it to a voice vote.

The bill was subsequently passed without the clause-by-clause consideration of its provisions, as required for constitution alteration bills.

Before the passage, the Minority Leader, Fred Agbedi, sought to raise a point of order before the House concluded proceedings, but was ruled out of order by the Speaker.

The development sparked protests from members of the minority caucus, who accused the presiding officer of denying Agbedi the opportunity to be heard.

Shortly after the passage of the bill, members of the minority caucus staged a walkout from the chamber in protest, accusing the House leadership of violating constitutional procedures during the consideration of the constitutional amendment.

 

Minority caucus faults voting process

Addressing journalists after the walkout, the Minority Caucus’ spokesman, Victor Afam Ogene, faulted the voting process, alleging that the House failed to comply with established parliamentary procedures.

Ogene alleged that the Speaker, while presiding over the Committee of the Whole, disregarded the provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which requires the support of two-thirds of members for constitutional alteration.

According to him, constitutional amendment bills ought to be determined based on the participation of members whose attendance is reflected in the House register and not through procedures that, in the caucus’s view, fell short of constitutional requirements.

Ogene also said the minority members had prepared proposed amendments to several clauses of the bill, but were denied the opportunity to present them during the clause-by-clause consideration.

Also speaking, Minority Leader Fred Agbedi said the caucus fully supported the creation of state police as a measure to address insecurity, but maintained that the House must strictly adhere to its rules and constitutional provisions in processing such legislation.

He argued that both the Constitution and the House Standing Orders require constitutional amendment bills to be considered clause-by-clause and supported by a two-thirds majority of members, rather than by voice vote.

Agbedi said the caucus had intended to vote in support of the bill while proposing amendments to some provisions, but was prevented from doing so after the Speaker declined to entertain his point of order.

The minority leader warned that failure to follow laid-down legislative procedures could undermine the credibility of the National Assembly and Nigeria’s democratic institutions, stressing that the caucus’ protest was aimed at defending the rule of law rather than opposing the establishment of state police.

 

State police bill passed against House rules — Rep Dasuki

A member of the House of Representatives, Dasuki Abdussamad, has alleged that the state police bill was passed in violation of the House of Representatives’ Standing Order, warning that the process could weaken the proposed policing system.

Speaking on Thursday during an interview on Trust TV’s News Hour programme, Abdussamad said the minority caucus supported the establishment of state police but opposed the manner in which the bill was passed.

He said the House failed to comply with its rules requiring clause-by-clause consideration of constitutional amendment bills before passage.

“If we’re talking about amending the Constitution, talking about safeguards and how to check abuse of state police by governors, then here we are as lawmakers going against our own laws. What kind of foundation are we laying for the country?” he queried.

“We have 26 clauses. Our rules say constitutional amendments must be considered clause-by-clause, but that wasn’t done. We are starting on a very shaky foundation,” he added.

The lawmaker said the minority caucus had prepared amendments after consulting constitutional lawyers and other experts, but was not given the opportunity to present them.

According to him, the proposed amendments included safeguards against abuse of state police by governors and measures to strengthen funding.

“If we continue on this path, we will not achieve the real objective of state police because the foundation is already weak,” he said.

 

Proposed amendments by minority caucus

Beyond its objection to the procedure adopted for the passage of the state police bill, the Minority Caucus also released a clause-by-clause review, proposing several amendments aimed at strengthening accountability, operational independence and federal-state balance in the proposed policing framework.

In its recommendations, the caucus urged the House to guarantee direct funding for state police services to prevent political manipulation through financial deprivation.

It also proposed stronger constitutional guarantees for the independence of the National Police Council and State Police Service Commissions by shielding them from the direction or control of the President and state governors in carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.  

The caucus further called for greater transparency by requiring regulations issued by the Federal Police Service Commission to be published in the Federal Gazette and laid before the National Assembly, while State Police Service Commissions should submit annual reports to their respective Houses of Assembly.

On policing operations, the minority lawmakers recommended clearer constitutional boundaries between federal and state policing responsibilities.

They proposed allowing state police officers to pursue suspects across state boundaries under “fresh pursuit” arrangements, the establishment of community policing committees in every local government area, and limiting federal intervention in state policing to situations where all operational support had first been exhausted and only as a measure of last resort.

They also recommended that any prolonged federal intervention should require the approval of both chambers of the National Assembly rather than only the Senate, and that any court challenge to such intervention should enjoy accelerated hearing.

The recommendations also sought changes to the command structure by replacing the designation “Commissioner of Police of the State” with “Chief of Police of the State” to avoid confusion with federal commands.

It proposed empowering any police officer—not only the Inspector-General or State Police Chief—to challenge unlawful directives before the appropriate Police Service Commission, while making officers personally liable for obeying unlawful orders, subject to judicial proceedings.

To strengthen oversight, the minority caucus recommended that the National Assembly periodically review national minimum policing standards at intervals not exceeding five years.

It also proposed deleting the word “validly” from the provision empowering state assemblies to legislate on state police, arguing that the expression unnecessarily suggested the National Assembly could enact invalid laws.

On governance, the caucus advocated a reconstitution of the proposed National Police Council to reflect what it described as “true federalism”.

It recommended removing the President and governors from membership of the council, replacing them with broader representation from state Attorneys-General, chairmen of state police service commissions, the National Human Rights Commission, the Public Complaints Commission, organised labour, the Nigerian Bar Association and retired senior police officers.

It also proposed expanding the council’s powers to include investigating misconduct against police chiefs, certifying state police services, resolving disputes between federal and state police formations, enforcing national policing standards and supervising compliance nationwide.

The document further recommended secure tenure for members of the Federal Police Service Commission, the creation of an independent civilian complaints mechanism for cases involving serious abuse and corruption, and a more autonomous structure for State Police Service Commissions with transparent appointments, fixed tenure and stronger accountability provisions.

It also urged the inclusion of additional constitutional definitions to clearly define key concepts such as operational policing, federal policing functions, interstate crime and intervention thresholds to minimise future legal disputes over the implementation of state policing.