The minority caucus in the House of Representatives walked out on Thursday. They protested how the House handled a bill to set up state police in Nigeria.
This walkout happened right after the House approved the Constitution Alteration Bill for state police.
The bill was approved after the House discussed it and accepted the report from the Committee of the Whole.
Speaker Abbas Tajudeen led the voice vote during the session as the chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
Passing this bill is an important step in the process of changing the constitution to create state police. This proposal has gained more attention due to increasing security issues in different parts of Nigeria.
But the minority caucus disagreed with how the House went about it. They said the bill should have been looked at clause by clause and voted on.
After the protest, the Minority Leader of the House, Fred Agbedi (PDP, Bayelsa), spoke to reporters. He said the caucus is not against state police but they oppose the way the House ignored constitutional rules and its own Standing Orders when passing the bill.
Mr Agbedi explained that since this bill changes the constitution, it should have been reviewed clause by clause, with members voting on each section as the House rules state.
He pointed to Order 13.15(a) of the House Standing Orders. This order says that during clause-by-clause review in the Committee of the Whole, a clause is considered passed if two-thirds of House members vote for it.
“Our Standing Orders, the rules also in Order 13.15(a), and let me read it to your hearing: in the clause-by-clause consideration in Committee of the Whole, a clause or question shall be deemed passed if it be supported by a positive vote of two-thirds majority of members of the House,” Mr Agbedi said.
He noted that the way the House did it did not allow members to vote on each part of the bill or suggest changes.
The minority leader added that they had told Mr Tajudeen about parts of the bill they wanted to change, and the speaker recognized some of their concerns.
“We want to also add that the minority caucus is not against the creation of state police. We are not against the establishment of state police,” he said.
“Whatever is going to remedy the insecurity in this country, as a minority caucus, we are ready to support it. But any action taken by the parliament must follow due process.”
Mr Agbedi emphasized that the issue is not a fight between majority and minority parties. It is about maintaining the integrity of the National Assembly and Nigeria’s democracy.
He said not following House rules and constitutional requirements could hurt the legislature's credibility and the country.
“For us who serve you, we have opportunities to relate with other colleagues across the world and these are the issues, these are the backlashes that we get as a parliament, as a nation,” he said.
The lawmaker said they expected the bill to go through proper clause-by-clause review. This would let members suggest changes and vote on different parts.
But he said the speaker only read the bill's title before calling for a voice vote.
“But for Mr Speaker to sit as chairman of the Committee of the Whole and just read the long title of it and then put a voice question for determination of an alteration that requires thorough and clause-by-clause consideration and voting is absurd,” Mr Agbedi said.
He called the process an abuse of due process and a disregard for House rules and the constitution.
The caucus decided to walk out when Mr Agbedi was ruled out of order while trying to raise a point of order.
“Why did we walk out? As the minority leader, I raised a point of order and, without the chairman of the Committee of the Whole hearing my point of order, he ruled me out of order,” he said.
“He needed to hear my point of order and then rule me based on whether my point of order complied with our rules and the Constitution or not. But he just ruled me out of order because I insisted that I had a point of order and I wanted to raise my point of order.”
Mr Agbedi said this incident raised concerns about how minority lawmakers can take part in House activities and share their views according to House rules.
“If, as a minority leader and 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,” he said.
The minority leader also questioned whether it was proper to decide a constitutional change with a voice vote. He said this process should involve a clear count of votes.
“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,” he said.
“How about those who said nay? Did you record them? No.”
He stated that the caucus was not against state police and would have supported the bill while suggesting changes where they felt it was needed.
“We were all going to cast our votes in support of the creation of state police, as well as amend where necessary,” he said.
“Laws, proposals, executive bills and individual bills are all subject to amendment before members in chambers, and in this case, we were denied. We were not allowed to go through clause by clause. We were not given the opportunity to cast our votes as provided for both by the Constitution in Section 9(2), as well as in Order 5(a), and that is why we are here.”
Mr Agbedi urged Nigerians to stay alert. He said the minority caucus will keep opposing what they see as a breach of the rule of law.
“We stand on the side of Nigerians. We stand on the side of the rule of law,” he said.
“We stand on the right side of what will make Nigeria a great nation and not what will impeach on the integrity, progress and development of this nation that we all swore to serve as members of the House of Representatives.”
The spokesperson for the minority caucus, Afam Ogene (NDC, Anambra), also criticized the way the House handled the bill.
Mr Ogene said the state police proposal is a constitutional alteration bill, not a simple amendment. He pointed out that Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution requires two-thirds of National Assembly members to participate in changing the Constitution.
“A Constitution alteration bill, not a mere amendment, the Constitution in Section 9(2) does provide that two-thirds of members must participate in that process,” he said.
He questioned how the House decided who was present during the session. He said attendance registers should be used to confirm the number of members present.
“We saw Mr Speaker acting as chairman in a Committee of the Whole, read out some names that we do not know where they came from,” Mr Ogene said.
“The way of determining members who are present in sitting is by our registers, and that is why those registers are there to be signed on each legislative day.”
According to him, members present signed the registers and their presence should be checked based on official House records.
He added that the minority caucus raised a constitutional point of order during the session but was not allowed to follow through.
“So members came in, signed in, and at the first point when they called for a constitutional point of order, there was no need throwing it overboard,” he said.
“The Constitution is the grand norm. It is the rule book upon which even our Standing Orders derive their strength and powers.”
Mr Ogene said the speaker’s choice to continue despite the minority caucus's concerns was ignoring the Constitution.
“So for Mr Speaker, acting as chairman in a Committee of the Whole, to disregard the clear provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is a great affront to the workings of the House of Representatives,” he said.
He also mentioned that the caucus submitted their stance on the bill, including details of clauses and amendments they wanted to be considered during the clause-by-clause stage.
“But as you all saw, they never gave anyone that opportunity,” Mr Ogene said.




Drop your comment
No comments yet — be the first to drop the gist 👇