The minority caucus of the House of Representatives on Thursday staged a walkout during plenary, protesting the manner in which the House considered and passed a bill seeking to establish state police in Nigeria.

The walkout occurred shortly after the House passed the Constitution Alteration Bill seeking to create state police.

The bill was passed after the House considered the proposal during plenary and adopted the report of the Committee of the Whole.

The passage followed a voice vote conducted by the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, who presided over the proceedings as chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

| | |
|---|

The passage of the bill marked another step in the constitutional amendment process for the creation of state police, a proposal that has received renewed attention amid the worsening security situation in various parts of Nigeria.

However, the minority caucus rejected the procedure adopted by the House, arguing that the bill should have been subjected to clause-by-clause consideration and voting.

Addressing journalists after the protest, the Minority Leader of the House, Fred Agbedi (PDP, Bayelsa), said the caucus was not opposed to the creation of state police but rejected what it described as the disregard of constitutional provisions and the Standing Orders of the House in the passage of the bill.

Mr Agbedi said the bill, being a constitutional alteration, ought to have been considered clause by clause, with members voting on each clause as required by the rules of the House.

He cited Order 13.15(a) of the House Standing Orders, which provides that during clause-by-clause consideration in the Committee of the Whole, a clause or question shall be deemed passed if supported by a positive vote of two-thirds of the members of the House.

“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 said the procedure adopted by the House did not allow members to vote individually on the provisions of the bill or to propose amendments.

The minority leader said the caucus had informed Mr Tajudeen of areas where it wanted amendments to be made and that the speaker had acknowledged some of the concerns raised.

“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 said the controversy was not about a disagreement between the majority and minority parties but about protecting the integrity of the National Assembly and Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

He argued that the failure to comply with the rules of the House and constitutional requirements could damage the credibility of the legislature 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 the minority caucus had expected the bill to be subjected to proper clause-by-clause consideration, during which members would be allowed to propose amendments and vote on the provisions.

He, however, said the speaker, who presided over the Committee of the Whole, only read the long title of the bill before putting it to 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 described the procedure as an abuse of due process and a disregard for the rules of the House and constitutional provisions.

He said the caucus decided to walk out after he was ruled out of order while attempting to raise a point of order during the proceedings.

“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 the incident raised questions about the ability of minority lawmakers to participate in proceedings and express their views in accordance with the rules of the House.

“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 the validity of determining a constitutional alteration through a voice vote, arguing that the process required a verifiable vote by members.

“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 said the caucus was not opposed to the creation of state police and would have supported the bill while proposing amendments where necessary.

“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 remain vigilant, saying the minority caucus would continue to oppose what it considered 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.”

‘Constitutional alteration requires two-thirds participation’

The spokesperson of the minority caucus, Afam Ogene (NDC, Anambra), also criticised the procedure adopted by the House.

Mr Ogene said the state police proposal was a constitutional alteration bill and not an ordinary amendment, adding that Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution required the participation of at least two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly in the process of altering 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 the basis for determining the members who were present during the proceedings, saying the attendance registers of the House should be used to establish 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 who attended the sitting signed the registers and their presence ought to have been determined based on the official records of the House.

He said the minority caucus had raised a constitutional point of order during the proceedings but was not allowed to pursue it.

“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 decision to proceed with the process despite the concerns raised by the minority caucus amounted to a disregard of 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 said the caucus had submitted its position on the bill, including a detailed compendium of the clauses and proposed amendments that it wanted considered during the clause-by-clause stage.

“But as you all saw, they never gave anyone that opportunity,” Mr Ogene said.