Three hundred and eleven members of the 10th House of Representatives voted in support of the bill seeking to establish State Police Services in Nigeria during Thursday’s plenary.
Speaker Abbas Tajudeen disclosed this during the Committee of the Whole, convened to consider the report of the Special Ad-hoc Committee on Constitution Review chaired by Hon. Benjamin Kalu. He announced that the House would use electronic voting based on an earlier resolution passed by the chamber.
Trouble, however, started when the Minority Leader, Hon. Fred Agbedi, and the Minority Spokesman, Hon. Victor Ogene, simultaneously raised a point of order but were not recognised by Speaker Tajudeen. The Speaker had earlier ruled Hon. Benedict Itanabene out of order after he cited a constitutional point of order to explain why the State Police bill should be stepped down.
Despite their insistence, Speaker Tajudeen asked those opposed to the State Police bill to identify themselves and announced that about 15 members opposed the legislative framework.
According to him, a total of 211 members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), 65 members from other political parties, and 35 additional members indicated support for the bill on the digital platform, bringing the total number of votes in favour of the State Police bill to 311.
While noting that the House required 240 votes, representing two-thirds of its 360 members, he explained that the bill contained 26 clauses and a long title.
Shortly after the brief rowdy session, a cross-section of the Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives staged a walkout a few minutes after the adoption of the report on the bill seeking to establish State Police.
The walkout followed the refusal of the presiding officer to recognise lawmakers who had shouted ‘Point of Order’ to express their opposition to the report of the Special Ad-hoc Committee on Constitution Review.
In his remarks, Minority Leader Hon. Fred Agbedi argued that the opposition parties were not opposed to the proposed State Police but to what he described as the Speaker’s high-handedness in ruling him out of order, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Rules of the 10th House of Representatives.
He said:
‘He needed to hear my point of order and then rule based on whether my point of order complied with our rules, with the constitution or not. But he just ruled me out of order because I insisted that I have a point of order and I wanted to raise my point of order. And if, as Minority Leader, as officers of the minority and as members of the minority, we are not allowed to express ourselves based on the rules of the House, then something is wrong.
‘And the requirement is that if we had walked out of the House, then where are our votes? Can you count our votes? Can you count anybody’s votes? Can you decide a constitutional amendment with a voice vote? No, it is not possible. How about those who said nay? Did you record them? No. So we are running a nation without the rule of law.
‘Nigeria should be alert about this. All we asked for, and the only thing we requested, was that due process should be followed. We were all going to cast our votes in support of the creation of State Police and amend the bill where necessary. Laws, proposals, executive bills and private members’ bills are all subject to amendment before members in the chamber, and in this case, we were denied that opportunity.
‘We were not allowed to go through the bill clause by clause. We were not given the opportunity to cast our votes as provided for by both the Constitution in Section 9(2) and Order 5(a), and that is why we are here. Nigerians should be vigilant. We will stand on the side of Nigerians.
‘We stand on the side of the rule of law. We stand on the right side of what will make Nigeria a great nation and what will not impinge on the integrity, progress and development of this nation that we all swore to serve as members of the House of Representatives.’
Speaking earlier, the spokesman of the Minority Caucus, Hon. Victor Afam Ogene, alleged that the names mentioned by the Speaker were unknown to them.
He maintained that the Speaker’s action amounted to an affront to the provisions of the Constitution.
However, the Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. George Ozodinobi, who remained in the chamber, seconded the motions, including the State Police bill.
At the end of the day’s legislative activities, Speaker Tajudeen announced that the House had adjourned plenary until Tuesday, September 16, 2026.
In a letter addressed to the Speaker, the Minority Caucus expressed support for the principle of State Police but argued that the proposed bill should be recommitted for further legislative scrutiny to address constitutional ambiguities, drafting inconsistencies, jurisdictional uncertainties, governance gaps, and unresolved institutional questions.
‘However, while we fully support the objective of establishing State Police, we caution against the adoption of any legislative instrument in its present form where legal ambiguities, structural inconsistencies, governance gaps and unresolved constitutional questions remain.
‘Enacting a constitutional framework with such deficiencies risks weakening, rather than strengthening, Nigeria’s security architecture and may create avoidable constitutional disputes, institutional conflicts and operational uncertainties for years to come.
‘Our concern is therefore not against State Police; it is against adopting an incomplete constitutional framework. History will not judge the National Assembly merely by whether this Bill is passed. It will judge whether the institution created is effective, accountable, constitutionally sound, respectful of fundamental rights and capable of strengthening rather than fragmenting our national unity.
‘Our concerns: Following a detailed legal and constitutional review, we have identified several critical issues that require further consideration before the legislative process is concluded, including, but not limited to, the following: The constitutional review process should be completed properly.
‘The speed at which the Bill has progressed has led to several drafting inconsistencies, constitutional ambiguities, jurisdictional uncertainties, undefined institutional powers, conflicting provisions and other significant issues that require careful legislative attention.
‘Constitutional amendments differ fundamentally from ordinary legislation.
‘They establish permanent institutional arrangements that may shape governance for generations. Such reforms must therefore be subjected to the highest standard of legislative scrutiny. Nigeria cannot afford to constitutionalise uncertainty.’
While noting that recent legislative experiences, namely the Tax Reform Bills and aspects of the Electoral Reform Act, reflected the consequences of advancing far-reaching national reforms without sufficient consultation, technical review and legislative refinement, the caucus argued that the fallout ‘illustrate[s] how unresolved drafting issues, policy ambiguities and divergent stakeholder interpretations can generate prolonged implementation uncertainty.’
‘These experiences should serve as important lessons, not because the reforms themselves lacked merit, but because constitutional and institutional reforms of national significance require meticulous drafting and rigorous scrutiny before they become law. The objective must therefore not simply be to complete the legislative process within a particular timeline.
‘Rather, it must be to enact a constitutional framework that is clear, coherent, enforceable and capable of enduring for generations. Amending the Constitution is not an exercise to be undertaken lightly. Once constitutional institutions are created, correcting foundational defects becomes significantly more difficult than addressing them during the legislative process.
‘Taking the necessary time to perfect this Bill today will help avoid costly constitutional litigation, institutional conflicts and operational uncertainty tomorrow.
‘State Police must not become an unfunded constitutional mandate. One of the most serious concerns arising from the proposed reform is the financial burden that the establishment and efficient operation of State Police will place on state governments.
‘The establishment of State Police will transfer a significant part of the policing responsibility presently undertaken and financed by the Federal Government to state governments. Fiscal responsibility must follow constitutional responsibility. It would be inequitable and institutionally unsustainable to transfer substantial security obligations to states while retaining a revenue allocation structure designed for a predominantly centralised policing system.
‘Specifically, we propose the reallocation of 15 per cent of the Federation Account revenue presently accruing to the Federal Government to state governments. This adjustment would reflect the substantial policing, public safety, personnel, infrastructure and operational responsibilities being transferred to the states under the proposed constitutional framework.
‘The reallocation should not be treated as a discretionary intervention, temporary grant or politically controlled subvention. It should form part of a transparent, constitutionally and statutorily recognised restructuring of Nigeria’s fiscal federalism.’
While stressing that the debate on State Police is not a partisan issue, the caucus maintained that ‘the success or failure of State Police will affect every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, region or social status.
‘Our intervention must not be misconstrued as opposition to this historic reform. It is an exercise of constitutional responsibility and a call for legislative diligence, institutional clarity and fiscal realism. We believe that the adoption stage presents the final opportunity for the House of Representatives to eliminate legal ambiguities, resolve institutional inconsistencies, strengthen accountability safeguards, establish sustainable funding arrangements and produce a constitutional framework capable of withstanding legal scrutiny and operational realities.’