State Police Bill passes House after minority walkout

By: Abudu Olalekan

It was meant to be a historic day for one of Nigeria’s most contentious security reforms. And it was, but not without heartburn and hullabaloo.

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved the Constitution Alteration Bill seeking to legalise the establishment of state police in Nigeria.

The bill was passed by the House with a two-thirds majority vote, despite minority members’ complaints that procedure was not followed and that the constitutional cover for state police in Nigeria needs further improvements before it can be passed by the National Assembly.

“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,” was submitted to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu.

This is part of the administration’s drive to decentralise security and tackle the country’s worsening security situation.

The proposed constitution alteration will enable Nigeria to have state-level police forces if it clears the House and the Senate and is approved by at least two-thirds (240) of the members of the 36 state Houses of Assembly and signed by the President.

Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, presenting the report of the House Committee on Constitution Review, said the constitutional proposal is one of the most significant security reforms Nigeria has witnessed in a long time.

“The President has done us good by sending the executive bill to this House, thus giving us an opportunity to contribute to this great nation-building exercise,” he said.

He said the proposed amendment is a people-oriented one that will boost policing intelligence, community policing, and quick response to the country’s security challenges, noting that it was designed to decentralise Nigeria’s security structure.

“This bill is not only about the creation of another security agency but is also about bringing policing closer to the people, augmenting policing intelligence, expanding community policing, and enhancing inter-security-agency coordination and cooperation, as well as quick response to the myriad of security challenges agitating the country,” said Kalu.

“If this proposed amendment will not meet all tests, it is because constitutional reforms are usually not carried out in one go but in phases,” he noted.

The amendment, he said, would enable state governments to have better intelligence on the security situation in their respective states, adding that issues raised in previous debates on state police would be addressed in subsequent phases.

“Important matters relating to police recruitment, training, funding formula, accountability, and police operational and administrative guidelines, as well as centre-state police coordination will be the subject of further legislation,” Kalu said.

“We must not allow the search for perfection to be the reason for wanting to halt meaningful reform,” he added.

How the rowdy session was initiated

The howling began in the Committee of the Whole when the customary procedure of reading the clauses of the proposed amendment was not followed, as the Speaker did not allow a clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed changes to the Constitution.

Instead, Speaker of the House Tajudeen Abbas read out the long title of the proposed amendment and moved for its approval by voice vote.

Abbas stated that out of the 360 members, 311 members indicated their assent to the proposed amendment, comprising 211 APC members, 65 non-AKP members present, and 35 members who cast their votes electronically via the House portal.

He reminded the House that a constitution amendment bill required the approval of at least two-thirds (240) of the 360 members of the House.

However, this was not enough for some opposition members, who walked out of the House chamber soon after the Speaker certified the passage of the amendment.

The minority members accused the leadership of violating the decorum of the House by not allowing a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Minority Leader Frederick Agbedi several times moved to call attention to the Speaker to raise a point of order before being silenced by him.

When Abbas asked members to show their assent to the motion for the adoption of the amendment, those in favour of it cried “aye”, while those against it cried “nay”.

When the Speaker declared the “ayes” had it, the minority members walked out of the Green Chamber.

For a moment, the usual decorum of the House was totally devastated, with the minority members shouting down the Speaker before he was able to restore order by banging the gavel several times.

Flawed process, minority accuses

After walking out of the chamber, the minority members told reporters that their objection to the adoption of the bill was not on its substantive issues but rather the procedure the House used to adopt it.

Their spokesperson, Afam Ogene, questioned the veracity of the number of members present and voting as declared by the Speaker.

He said the minority members want the number of members present in any sitting of the House to be determined by the manual register as the official record.

“We are very surprised that the name of members not present in plenary are being announced because nobody knows where they are,” Ogene said.

“We believe the register should be used to determine who is present in any business of the House because it is the official document members sign every day they come to the House,” he added.

He also accused the Speaker of presiding over the Committee of the Whole and adopting the motion for the House to approve the Constitution Alteration Bill without following Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which says that the National Assembly shall consider the Constitution Alteration Bill clause by clause.

Agbedi also told reporters that the minority members are not against the concept of state police but objected to the process used to adopt the bill.

“We are not against state police. Whatever will help this country to address its worsening security challenges, we will support it wholeheartedly,” said Agbedi.

He noted that the objection of the minority members was over the violation of the House’s Standing Orders, which requires the consideration of each clause of a Constitution Alteration Bill and its approval by a two-thirds majority.

According to Agbedi, the minority members were denied the right to question and amend each clause of the proposed amendment before adopting it.

“If the minority walked out of the House, where do their voices go? Can anyone take their votes as valid? Can a constitutional amendment be adopted by a voice vote?” he asked.

“The Constitution and House Standing Orders require a two-thirds majority for every provision in a Constitution Alteration Bill, not for the whole document at once. This is what the minority members are objecting to,” he added.

“The minority members want to ensure that a constitutional amendment is adopted in a manner that conforms to the Standing Orders of the House and the Federal Constitution.

Our objection is not to the concept of state police but to a flawed process,” Agbedi said.

Need for more review

In a letter dated July 22, 2026, and addressed to the Speaker, the minority members reiterated their position on the need to have further reviews before adopting the Constitution Alteration Bill.

The letter, signed by Ogene, stated that the minority caucus supports the proposed state police but noted several constitutional, drafting, jurisdictional, governance, and administrative loopholes in it.

The minority members asked the leadership to re-commit the bill for further consideration by the National Assembly because of the flaws they identified.

“We, the undersigned members of the House of Representatives, request your Honour the Speaker to re-commit the Constitution Alteration Bill for further consideration by the House as we have raised several concerns about the adoption of the proposed amendment as it is currently worded,” the letter read.

The letter stated that the minority members believe the proposed constitution amendment needs more technical reviews before it can be finally adopted.

“The minority caucus unequivocally supports the principle behind the establishment of state police in Nigeria.

Our concern is not with the principle but with adopting a constitution amendment that does not have a sound legal and technical basis,” the letter said.

The minority members warned that the adoption of a flawed constitutional amendment would pose future challenges for the country.

“The minority members believe that constitutional bills require a lot of due diligence for the simple reason that they provide a permanent legal framework for Nigeria’s governance system. If it turns out to be defective, it will have adverse consequences for Nigeria,” the letter said.

In addition to the technical and constitutional challenges with the proposed amendment, the minority members also raised objections to its fiscal implications.

According to Ogene, the biggest concern is that the proposed state police will impose a huge fiscal burden on Nigeria’s state governments.

Currently, responsibility for maintaining public safety is primarily carried by the Federal Government and the state police will add to the burden.

“This is a matter of great concern to us as we believe Nigeria cannot afford to have an additional layer of policing without adequate funding,” Ogene said.

The minority members asked that Nigeria’s fiscal architecture be reviewed to ease the burden of funding policing on the state governments.

“For instance, we recommend that 15% of the Federation Account sharing currently directed to the Federal Government be redirected to the States to ease the burden of funding police operations,” he said.

“The minority members are concerned that devolving policing without providing resources for it will constitute an unconstitutional charge on the states.

It is therefore in the best interest of Nigeria for the state police to have a fiscal policy that will enable them survive and carry out their mandate efficiently and effectively,” Ogene added.

The minority members asked the Speaker to halt the adoption of the Constitution Alteration Bill and directed him to send it to the House Committee on Justice for a limited technical review by security and policing experts, lawyers, state governments, and fiscal analysts, noting that their intention was to bolster the bill.

“Nigeria deserves to have the best state police framework that is not only technically sound but also adequately resourced to withstand the test of time,” the minority members said in their letter.

A protracted debate over Nigeria’s security

Ever since the idea of state police was proposed, Nigeria has been embroiled in a heated debate over whether to adopt it and how best to do so.

Supporters of state police argue that decentralising policing will allow Nigeria to better combat the country’s worsening multiple security challenges, citing the inability of the current system to cope with banditry, kidnapping, terrorism, and communal clashes.

They argue that a more responsive and effective policing mechanism is required, such as decentralising police organisation and decision-making, and enhancing policing intelligence, community policing, and rapid response to security challenges.

Opponents of state police argue that it would lead to the politicisation of policing, especially since the governors who will control the new police forces will be directly elected.

They also note that many state governments may not be able to bear the huge financial burden of having their own police forces.

Despite the controversy, the approval of the proposal by the House is a huge step forward in its journey to becoming law.

It, however, still has to clear several hurdles, including Senate approval and the ratification by at least 240 members of Nigeria’s 36 state legislatures.