The House of Representatives' move to strip immunity from vice presidents, governors, and their deputies, while sparing the president, has ignited a heated debate among stakeholders. Critics are questioning the logic behind this proposed legislation, arguing that it creates an uneven playing field and undermines the principles of fairness and accountability.

Political scientists, civil rights activists, and politicians have voiced their concerns over the proposed amendments. They contend that since the president and vice president are elected on a joint ticket, they should both be subject to the same rules regarding immunity. Dr. Aminu Hayatu, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Bayero University, Kano, and Shehu Sani, a human rights activist and former Kaduna senator, are among those who have spoken out against the bill.

According to these stakeholders, the principle of "what is good for the president is also good for the vice president" should apply. They argue that any proposal to remove immunity should affect both the president and the vice president equally. The House of Representatives recently passed for second reading a bill seeking to amend the constitution to strip immunity from vice presidents, governors, and deputy governors. This bill was among the 42 considered during a plenary session presided over by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Okezie Kalu. In total, 81 constitution amendment bills have now passed for second reading.

Rep. Solomon Bob (Rivers PDP) is sponsoring the bill, which aims to amend Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution. The goal is to prevent abuse of office and ensure transparency in governance. The proposed legislation is titled “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity, and enhance accountability in public office and for Related Matters”. The lawmaker emphasized that the bill seeks to promote accountability by removing the immunity currently granted to vice presidents, governors, and their deputies.

The draft bill proposes substituting a new subsection (3) in Section 308 of the principal Act: “This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.” Additionally, subsection (4) suggests that “The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature”.

Dr. Aminu Hayatu criticized the amendment bill, calling it unnecessary. He questioned the rationale behind removing immunity only for the vice president while allowing the president to retain it. He pointed out that both are elected on a joint ticket and should be treated the same. “So, the question is, this is a joint ticket. So, why are you isolating someone that is also a party to the ticket? If you are doing that, do it to the governors alongside the deputies and the president with his vice president. I mean, that makes sense because it’s a joint ticket. They were not elected separately. So, all this is something that I think is unnecessary,” Hayatu stated.

Hayatu suggested that the focus should be on whether the executive should maintain the privilege of immunity at all, rather than selectively targeting certain individuals. He added, “What we need to focus on is whether the executive should maintain that privilege of immunity or not. That should be the subject of debate. Not that some individuals, you know, are being considered while others are being spared. The same reason the vice-president or the deputy governor is there is to assist the president or the governor. And then, it’s the same duty and function that they are performing as assistants to these executive positions; the number one position in the state or in the country.”

Shehu Sani also weighed in on the matter, expressing concerns about the selective removal of immunity. Sani stated, “The positive aspects of removing immunity for VP and governors is that nobody will be above the law; the negative aspect of it is that it can be used to witch hunt VPs and governors.” He argued that if vice presidents must lose their immunity, the president should not be spared either. “If a VP should have no immunity, whoever is the President should not have it also,” Sani urged Nigerians to take an interest in the proposed amendment bill before it is too late.

In addition to the immunity bill, the House also passed a proposal to increase the number of Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Lagos State from 20 to 57. This bill, sponsored by Reps James Abiodun Faleke, Babajimi Benson, Enitan Badru, and 19 others, aims to accommodate the 37 Development Area Councils of Lagos State as full-fledged LGAs. The creation of LCDAs by Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2004 caused a dispute with then-President Olusegun Obasanjo, who halted allocations to the state. While most states reverted to the old councils, Lagos State remained resolute, leading to a legal battle that Lagos State eventually won in the Supreme Court.

Other bills passed for second reading include those seeking a review of the framework for Local Government Administration, review of death penalty law, and citizenship by investment. One bill proposes transferring control of natural resources from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List, giving state governments a greater role in resource governance. Additional bills propose transferring fingerprints, identification, and criminal records from the Exclusive to the Concurrent List. There are also bills to allow states to collect road tolls and to move the construction of non-trunk ‘A’ roads to the Concurrent List. A bill co-sponsored by Benjamin Okezie Kalu proposes including tourism on the Concurrent List to boost the industry’s development at the state level.

The House also considered bills seeking the creation of new states, including Oke-Ogun, Ijebu, Ife-Ijesa, Tiga, Orlu, and Etiti. On local governance, a bill aims to reinforce local government autonomy, while another proposes removing local governments as a constitutionally recognized tier of government. Additional bills propose formal recognition of traditional rulers’ advisory roles in governance and seek to extend citizenship rights to foreign spouses of Nigerian women.

House spokesman Rep. Akin Rotimi explained that the accelerated passage of the constitution amendment bills was based on a resolution and recommendations by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendment. The measure was intended to expedite the constitution review process, aligning with the committee’s deadline of December 2025. The House aims to speed up the committee’s work ahead of public hearings and other activities.