Legislative Showdown: Reps Pass Controversial State Police Bill Amidst Minority Walkout

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish State Police Services across Nigeria, a move that prompted a walkout protest by the Minority Caucus. While the opposition lawmakers affirmed their support for the creation of state police as a measure to address Nigeria’s pervasive security challenges, their protest stemmed from alleged violations of constitutional provisions and parliamentary procedures during the bill’s consideration.

President Bola Tinubu had transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, to the House, aiming to provide a legal framework for state-controlled police formations as part of broader efforts to strengthen national security. Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who chairs the House Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, clarified that the amendment primarily provides the constitutional foundation for State Police, with detailed implementation issues such as recruitment, training, operational standards, funding, accountability, and intergovernmental coordination to be addressed through subsequent legislation.

The bill was ultimately approved with the support of 311 lawmakers, comfortably surpassing the two-thirds majority of 240 members required for constitutional amendments in the 360-member House. Speaker Abbas Tajudeen confirmed that 276 members voted physically, while an additional 35 participated virtually. However, the Minority Caucus, led by Fredrick Agbedi, accused the House leadership of disregarding crucial constitutional provisions and House Rules. Specifically, they cited Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Order 13 Rule 15(a) of the House Rules, which mandate clause-by-clause consideration and approval by a two-thirds majority for constitutional amendment bills.

Agbedi and other minority lawmakers argued that the Speaker merely read the long title of the bill and subjected it to a voice vote, bypassing detailed consideration of individual clauses and denying them the opportunity to propose amendments despite prior discussions. Minority Caucus spokesman Victor Afam Ogene further elaborated on these procedural faults, alleging that the voting process failed to comply with established parliamentary procedures. Member Dasuki Abdussamad echoed these concerns, warning that a failure to follow laid-down legislative procedures could undermine the credibility of the National Assembly and weaken the proposed policing system, stressing that the bill’s 26 clauses were not considered individually. The caucus firmly maintained that their protest was a defense of the rule of law rather than an outright opposition to the establishment of state police.

Beyond their procedural objections, the Minority Caucus also released a detailed clause-by-clause review, proposing several amendments aimed at strengthening accountability, operational independence, and ensuring a balanced federal-state policing framework. These recommendations included: Ensuring Direct Funding and Operational Independence by guaranteeing direct funding for state police services to prevent political manipulation and proposing stronger constitutional guarantees for the independence of the National Police Council and State Police Service Commissions from the direction or control of the President and state governors in carrying out their responsibilities.

The caucus further emphasized Transparency and Robust Oversight, advocating for regulations issued by the Federal Police Service Commission to be published in the Federal Gazette and laid before the National Assembly, with State Police Service Commissions submitting annual reports to their respective Houses of Assembly. They also recommended periodic review of national minimum policing standards by the National Assembly at intervals not exceeding five years.

Regarding Operational Boundaries and Federal Intervention, the minority lawmakers called for 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 and establishing community policing committees in every local government area. Federal intervention in state policing, they argued, should be limited to situations where all operational support has first been exhausted and only as a measure of last resort, with any prolonged federal intervention requiring approval from both chambers of the National Assembly and accelerated court hearings for challenges.

To enhance Command Structure and Officer Accountability, the caucus recommended replacing the designation “Commissioner of Police of the State” with “Chief of Police of the State” to avoid confusion with federal commands. They also 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.

In terms of Governance and Council Reconstitution, the caucus advocated for the deletion of the word “validly” from the provision empowering state assemblies to legislate on state police. They recommended reconstituting the proposed National Police Council to reflect “true federalism” by removing the President and governors from membership and including 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. The council’s powers should also be expanded 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.

Additional structural reforms suggested included Secure Tenure and Autonomous Structures 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. Finally, they 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 minimize future legal disputes over the implementation of state policing.

The Minority Caucus collectively emphasized that while they firmly believe in the necessity of state police to enhance security and address the nation’s challenges, the legislative process for such a critical constitutional amendment must adhere strictly to established laws and parliamentary rules to ensure the legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term viability of the eventual framework.