The House of Representatives has passed the executive bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution to provide for the establishment of state police services in Nigeria.
The bill was passed during plenary after 311 lawmakers voted in favour of the proposed constitutional amendment.
Speaker of the House, Abbas Tajudeen, said 276 lawmakers were physically present in the chamber, while 35 members participated in the voting virtually.
The passage followed the consideration and adoption of the report of the House Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu.
The bill is titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to Provide for the Establishment of State Police Services and for Related Matters (HB. 2797).”
It seeks to create a constitutional framework for the establishment of state police services as part of efforts to decentralise policing and strengthen internal security across the country.
President Bola Tinubu had recently transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, to the House of Representatives.
In his letter conveying the bill, Tinubu said the proposal builds on previous legislative efforts and introduces safeguards for a dual policing structure capable of addressing Nigeria’s security challenges.
The President said the amendment forms part of his administration’s plan to reform the country’s security architecture and improve the protection of lives and property.
Following receipt of the executive bill, the House rescinded its earlier resolution of June 11, 2026, on the establishment of state police services and dissolved the 12-member Conference Committee constituted on July 9, 2026.
However, the passage of the bill was not without controversy, as the Minority Caucus in the House staged a walkout from the chamber in protest.
Addressing journalists after leaving plenary, the Minority Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, said the caucus was not opposed to state police but objected to what it described as a violation of constitutional provisions and the Standing Orders of the House.
Agbedi accused the Speaker, while presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, of ignoring the requirements for altering the Constitution.
He argued that attendance in the House is determined by members’ registers signed on each legislative day, and not by names read out during proceedings.
“The Constitution is the grand norm. It is the rule book from which even our Standing Orders derive their powers. For the Speaker, acting as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to disregard the clear provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is a great affront to the workings of the House of Representatives,” he said.
The caucus maintained that constitutional amendment bills must be considered clause by clause, with each clause supported by a two-thirds majority of members.
Citing Order 13 Rule 15(a) of the House Rules, the lawmakers said a clause can only be deemed passed in the Committee of the Whole if supported by a positive vote of two-thirds majority of members of the House.
They faulted the decision to read only the long title of the bill and determine its passage through a voice vote, instead of conducting detailed clause-by-clause consideration.
Despite the protest, the bill was passed and will now proceed through the remaining stages of the constitutional amendment process before it can become law.
