The State Police Bill and the Question of How the Constitution Is Amended

Nigeria has debated state police for decades. In 2026 the debate has moved from speeches to the formal amendment process. The National Assembly has passed a constitutional alteration bill to establish State Police Services, sent it to the 36 State Houses of Assembly, and is waiting for at least 24 of them to approve it. At the same time, a lawsuit at the Federal High Court in Abuja asks a different question from the one most people are arguing about. It does not ask whether Nigeria should have state police. It asks whether the House of Representatives followed the Constitution when it passed the bill.

This article explains the bill, where it stands, and the legal question in the lawsuit. The suit is pending and no court has ruled on it, so nothing here predicts how it will end.

What the bill proposes

The bill is titled the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, "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". According to the National Assembly's own clarification, it is the only constitution alteration bill that has so far been sent to the state assemblies.

As reported, the bill would create Federal and State Police formations side by side. It would alter Section 214 of the Constitution for that purpose. No state police formation could start operating unless it is established by a law of that state's House of Assembly and certified as meeting national minimum standards set by an Act of the National Assembly. Until a state's police force is operational, the Federal Police would keep performing policing functions there. A State Commissioner of Police would be appointed by the governor on the advice of the National Police Council, from among serving members of the State Police, and confirmed by the State House of Assembly. A State Police Service would generally have no jurisdiction outside its state unless an Act of the National Assembly authorises it.

Where the bill stands

Reports give the following timeline. The Senate passed the bill on 24 June 2026, and the House of Representatives passed it on 23 July 2026. On 16 September 2026 the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, transmitted it to the 36 State Houses of Assembly under Section 9 of the Constitution. The Clerk asked the states to respond within 30 days but stressed that this is an administrative expectation and not a constitutional deadline.

The Constitution requires approval by resolution of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly, which means 24 of 36. Press reports say the Osun State House of Assembly was the first to approve the bill, unanimously, and that the Oyo State House of Assembly has also passed it. This article does not give a running count of states, because that figure was not verified and changes quickly.

One point of confusion is worth clearing up. Reports differ on the details of the House vote. One account attributes to the Speaker a figure of 311 votes in favour, made up of 276 members voting physically and 35 virtually. Another report gives 289 votes in favour with one abstention and none against. Because the sources disagree, this article does not rely on either figure.

The legal question: how must a constitutional alteration be passed?

Section 9(2) of the Constitution says an Act of the National Assembly to alter the Constitution (other than provisions that Section 8 or Section 9(3) deal with differently) shall not be passed in either House unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than a two-thirds majority of all the members of that House, and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States. Section 9(4) adds that, for this purpose, the number of members of each House is deemed to be the number set out in the Constitution, notwithstanding any vacancy.

Two things follow from the text. First, the threshold is measured against all the members of the House, not only those present on the day. In a 360-member House, two-thirds of all the members is 240 votes. Second, the Constitution says the proposal must be "supported by the votes" of that majority. It does not say in so many words whether a voice vote can satisfy this, which is the heart of the dispute.

The lawsuit

The suit is numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/2191/2026. The plaintiffs are the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Speak-Out Africa, Ushakase Agwa and Abdullahi A. Sani. The defendants are the House of Representatives and its Speaker. Their counsel is Sam Amadi of Logosphere Attorneys, Abuja. As reported on 28 September 2026, the suit had not yet been assigned to a judge. The report in question carries material first published by Daily Trust, so the details of the plaintiffs' case rest largely on that one reporting source.

The plaintiffs rely on Sections 9(1), 9(2) and 56(1) of the Constitution. According to the report, they ask the court to declare that: a constitutional alteration must be approved by the required majority through actual voting by individual members, not a voice vote; it must be considered clause by clause; a bill passed without a clause-by-clause reading or an actual count of the votes is invalid; the House's passage of the State Police Bill on 23 July 2026 was unconstitutional; and Order 11, Rule 2 of the House's Standing Rules is inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent that it allows passage by voice vote. They also asked the court to stop further action on the bill while the case is pending. As far as the reports show, no such order has been made.

The plaintiffs say they are challenging the procedure, not the idea of state police. Their evidence includes video of the 23 July proceedings and a 14-paragraph affidavit. Their position, in the words of their counsel as reported, is that the evidence shows no actual voting took place and that the voice vote was not counted.

What the House and the Minority say

The House has not answered the claims in court, because at the time of the report it said it had not been served. Its deputy spokesperson, Philip Agbese, was quoted as saying that the House was not aware of the suit, that courts cannot properly be used to stop the National Assembly from performing its constitutional functions, and that the House complied fully with its Standing Orders and the Constitution.

On 23 July 2026 members of the Minority Caucus walked out of plenary. The Minority Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, said the protest was not a rejection of state police but an objection to the way the bill was handled, arguing that Section 9(2) requires clause-by-clause consideration and a two-thirds approval. These are claims by the people who made them, and the court, not this article, will decide which is right.

Analysis: three things to watch

The following points are analysis, not reports of what any court has held.

First, the exact wording of the plaintiffs' claim matters. The report describes their argument as requiring two-thirds of members "present and voting", whereas the text of Section 9(2) speaks of two-thirds of all the members. This difference may simply be how the report summarised the claim, and the originating summons itself should be read before anyone relies on that description.

Second, the court will have to deal with how far it may examine the internal procedure of the legislature. The House's response points to the separation of powers. The plaintiffs' response is that a constitutional requirement is a constitutional requirement, and that whether it was met is a question the courts can answer. Which view prevails is for the court to decide.

Third, there are two clocks running at the same time. The state assemblies are voting now, while the suit has yet to be assigned to a judge. Whether and how the court would deal with a bill that has already moved to the states is a question this article cannot answer.

Why it matters

For law students, this is a live example of how the Constitution regulates its own amendment, and of the difference between asking whether a change is wise and asking whether it was made lawfully. Both questions matter, but they are decided by different people: the first by the legislature and the public, the second, where it is raised, by a court.

For the wider public, state police is a policy question on which people hold strong and sincere views. Supporters argue that policing closer to communities can respond faster to local threats. Critics, as summarised in some press reports, worry about governors controlling police forces and the risk of abuse. This article takes no side on that debate. The procedural question in the lawsuit applies whichever side a reader is on.

Limits of this article

The case is pending and unassigned, no ruling exists, and the plaintiffs' account is reported secondhand. The vote counts are disputed between sources. The tally of state assemblies changes by the day. The full text of the originating summons and the bill itself should be consulted before this material is cited in any filing or assignment.

Key takeaway

A constitution is changed by following the procedure the constitution itself sets. Whether the House followed it on 23 July 2026 is now a question before the Federal High Court. Whatever the answer, the fact that the question is being asked in a courtroom, by citizens, about the way their lawmakers amended their supreme law, says something about the kind of republic Nigeria is trying to be.

Sources

Daily Trust, via Parrot Nigeria, 28 September 2026: State Police Bill Faces Legal Battle. https://parrotnigeria.com/2026/09/28/state-police-bill-faces-legal-battle/

allAfrica, 28 September 2026: Nigeria: State Police Bill Faces Legal Battle. https://allafrica.com/stories/202609280706.html

PM News, 17 September 2026: Constitution Amendment: 36 states get bill, 30-day response window. https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2026/09/17/constitution-amendment-36-states-get-bill-30-day-response-window/

Voice of Nigeria: National Assembly Clarifies Transmission of State Police Bill. https://von.gov.ng/?p=642263

Leadership, 18 September 2026: Constitutional Amendment: 12 Things To Know About What Was Taken To State Assemblies. https://leadership.ng/constitutional-amendment-12-things-to-know-about-what-was-taken-to-state-assemblies/

Ripples Nigeria: JUST IN: Reps pass Bill to establish state police. https://www.ripplesnigeria.com/just-in-reps-pass-bill-to-establish-state-police/

Legit.ng: Osun Assembly Becomes First State to Approve State Police Constitutional Bill. https://www.legit.ng/politics/1732334-osun-assembly-state-approve-state-police-constitutional-bill/

NewsCentral TV: State Police: Oyo Assembly Passes Sixth Alteration Bill. https://newscentraltv.com/state-police-oyo-assembly-passes-sixth-alteration-bill/

Reuters, via Ghanaian Times: Nigeria's state police amendment bill to be ratified. https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/nigerias-state-police-amendment-bill-to-be-ratified/

Nigerian-constitution.com: Section 9, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). https://nigerian-constitution.com/chapter-1-part-2-section-9-nigerian-constitution/

Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC): Transmitted to State Legislatures: Constitution Alteration (6th Alteration) Bill, 2026. https://placng.org/i/documents/transmitted-to-state-legislatures-constitution-alteration-6th-alteration-bill-2026-to-provide-for-the-establishment-of-state-police-services/