The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called for the State Police Constitution Alteration Bill to be recommitted to a fresh and transparent legislative process, accusing the House of Representatives of undermining the Constitution in its handling of the bill.
The National Publicity Secretary of the ADC, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, questioned reports that the constitutional threshold for passage was only met through votes transmitted via WhatsApp and by counting members who were not present in the Chamber.
The ADC spokesman, in a statement, also argued that the current version of the bill had not been subjected to adequate public scrutiny. He warned that legislation of such national importance should not be driven by political expediency or shielded from rigorous public debate, particularly in the face of overwhelming concern over political abuse, despite widespread support for state police.
He noted that while the party supports the establishment of policing that meets the demands of Nigeria’s security challenges, it cannot support a process that undermines the very Constitution it seeks to amend.
“According to accounts publicly given by members who participated in the proceedings of the House of Representatives on 23 July 2026, the constitutional threshold for the amendment was achieved by recognising votes transmitted through WhatsApp from members who were absent from the Chamber and by counting members who had signed the attendance register but were no longer present when the question was put,” he said.
He said the allegations raise profound legal and constitutional concerns, adding that the Constitution is not amended by convenience.
“It is amended through strict procedures that leave no room for improvisation. Therefore, regardless of the noble intentions behind the amendment, the constitutional process for amendment must not be circumvented,” he stated.
The ADC said it was concerned by reports that meaningful clause-by-clause consideration of the bill was curtailed and that constitutional objections raised during the proceedings were not given proper consideration.
“Constitutional alteration demands openness, robust debate and strict fidelity to both the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House. This appears not to be the case in respect of this particular amendment.
