With the full commencement of the 2027 electoral cycle and the delay by the legislature in passing the gender bill, Nigerian women have missed another opportunity to advance their political participation.
It’s a familiar pattern in the campaign for gender inclusion in Nigerian politics: a major reform proposal gathers momentum, draws public support, and then quietly stalls.
However, as the electoral clock begins its final, frantic countdown, that hope is systematically strangled by procedural delays, silences, and “indefinite postponement.” It is, in many ways, beginning to feel like déjà vu.
At the centre of this latest episode is the Reserved Seats for Women Bill, sponsored by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, alongside 12 other members of the House.
The proposal is one of the most ambitious attempts yet to correct Nigeria’s persistent gender imbalance in elective offices.
In simple terms, the bill seeks to create additional seats, not to take existing ones away, but to reserve new positions exclusively for women across all levels of the legislature.
If passed, each state and the Federal Capital Territory would have one additional Senate seat reserved for women, while the House of Representatives would mirror the same arrangement with one extra seat per state and the FCT. At the state level, each House of Assembly would gain three additional seats exclusively for women.
This would significantly expand Nigeria’s federal legislature. The Senate would increase from 109 to 146 members, the House of Representatives from 360 to 397, while state assemblies would collectively rise to about 1,098 legislators. Women elected into these seats would have the same powers, rights and privileges as existing lawmakers and would still be eligible to contest regular seats.
The proposal is also designed as a temporary intervention, expected to run for four general election cycles, equivalent to 16 years, after which it would be reviewed to determine whether to retain, expand, or discontinue it.
Yet, this ambitious blueprint is currently gathering dust. Despite assurances from Mr Kalu, who chairs the House Constitution Review Committee, that the bill would be voted on by the fourth quarter of 2025, the calendar has flipped into 2026 with no significant movement. The committee votes originally scheduled for October 2025 were postponed to November 2025, and then vanished into the legislative fog of the new year.
The delay is no longer just procedural; it is becoming consequential.
With the commencement of the 2027 general elections party primaries in May, the window for meaningful impact has closed rapidly for the current electoral cycle. Constitutional amendments are meant to have been concluded before party primaries to influence candidate selection. Once parties finalise the election of candidates, the structure of representation is largely fixed.
Even if the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives) passes the bill, it must still secure the approval of at least two-thirds of the 36 State Houses of Assembly before it can be assented to by the President to become law. This requirement has historically proven to be one of the most difficult stages in Nigeria’s constitution amendment process.
This is not the first time a gender-focused bill has faltered at the National Assembly. Over the past two decades, several attempts to improve women’s political representation have either failed outright or stalled indefinitely.
The current bill did not emerge in isolation. It is, in many ways, a reworked version of an earlier effort that failed at a critical stage.
The proposal was first introduced in the 9th National Assembly by a former member of the House, Nkeiruka Onyejeocha, and co-sponsored by 85 lawmakers, including the former Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila. It formed part of a broader package of five gender-focused constitutional amendment bills considered during the fifth constitution alteration exercise.
At the time, the bill proposed a more expansive framework, with 111 additional seats at the federal level. This included three special seats for women in each state and one in the FCT across both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
However, when it came to a vote in March 2022, it failed to secure the required support, collapsing alongside other gender-related proposals despite strong advocacy and public attention.
Among them were proposals for special seats for women, citizenship rights for the foreign spouses of Nigerian women, as they exist for men, and indigeneship rights for married women.
The current version, now designated as HB 1349, reflects a strategic adjustment. The number of proposed seats has been reduced to 74, a response to concerns about an already bloated legislature. It also retains the sunset clause, providing for a review and possible termination after 16 years.
Also, the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill, first introduced in 2010, has repeatedly faced resistance, particularly in the Senate, over cultural and religious concerns. Various affirmative action proposals aimed at implementing the 35 per cent inclusion target in public appointments have also struggled to gain legal backing.
Beyond the reserved seats proposal, Nigeria’s legislative history is filled with unsuccessful attempts to advance gender-related reforms.
One of the most notable examples is the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill, which has repeatedly struggled to survive legislative scrutiny.
The bill was first introduced in the Sixth Senate in 2010 by former Imo East senator, Christiana Anyanwu, although it gained wider public attention in March 2016 when it failed to scale second reading in the Senate.
Later in 2016, former Ekiti South senator, Abiodun Olujimi, reintroduced the bill, but it again faced stiff opposition from lawmakers who argued that aspects of it conflicted with religious and cultural values.
The legislation sought to prohibit discriminatory practices against women and guarantee equal opportunities in political, social and economic life. Among other provisions, it proposed that widows should not be subjected to degrading or inhuman treatment and should retain custody rights over their children unless such custody contradicted the welfare of the children.
The bill also sought to compel both public and private institutions to ensure equal pay for individuals with the same level of competence, skill, and knowledge, regardless of gender.
During debates, some lawmakers opposed the proposal because it allegedly contradicted Islamic principles, while others argued that the Nigerian Constitution already provided sufficient protection for women’s rights.
Although some senators supported the legislation, the intense opposition eventually forced Mrs Olujimi to withdraw the bill, marking yet another setback for gender-focused reforms in Nigeria’s legislative history.
Several similar efforts have suffered the same fate.
