By Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja
When the House of Representatives resumes from its annual recess, one of the key issues likely to occupy the front burner is the consideration of bills seeking to alter different aspects of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). There are, however, concerns about the form the voting on the proposed alterations will take.
Before it proceeded on its annual recess in July, the House passed the State Police Bill by voice vote, and without the clause by clause consideration required by its standing rules. Expectedly, the opposition kicked, insisting that the procedure contravened both the 1999 Constitution and the rules of the House.
The thrust of the opposition lawmakers’ argument is that, apart from failing to subject the proposed legislation to a public hearing, the House neither considered it clause-by-clause nor followed the constitutional provisions on voting when it adopted a voice vote to pass the bill.
The House had on June 11 passed the State Police Bill by voice vote amid protests by some members. The proposed legislation seeks to alter the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to decentralise policing, enabling state governments to establish their own police forces if they so desire. However, on July 14, the Green Chamber rescinded its earlier decision after President Bola Tinubu transmitted an executive bill on state police to the parliament, and resolved to consider the executive version.
The bill passed first and second reading on the same day it was introduced and was referred to the Constitution Review Committee, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu. The committee submitted its report for consideration at the Committee of the Whole, and the bill was eventually passed by voice vote on July 23.
Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that an Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of the Constitution, other than one to which Section 8 applies, shall not be passed by either House unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two thirds of all its members. It must also be approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two thirds of all the states.
Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, who presided over the consideration of the State Police Bill, said after the voice vote that 276 members signed the attendance register in support of the bill while 35 more voted online, bringing the total in support to 311. He noted that the two thirds required to pass a bill is 240.
Beyond the controversy over the State Police Bill, the question is whether resort to voice votes in determining constitutional matters, which require a two thirds majority, has become the new normal in the Green Chamber. On March 20, 2025, the House similarly resorted to a voice vote to approve the emergency rule in Rivers State.
During consideration of President Tinubu’s request for approval of the state of emergency declared in Rivers over the political crisis in the state, the member representing Umuahia/Ikwuano Federal Constituency, Obi Aguocha, demanded a headcount to establish whether the House had the requisite number to sit on the matter.
Abbas, visibly jolted by the demand, said the attendance register would guide the House. He added that members were still signing and that attendance would be taken at the end of the day. He declined requests to announce the number of members present before consideration of the request began. Minutes later, the emergency rule was ratified by voice vote, with the Speaker declaring that 243 members were in attendance.
Section 305(6)(b) of the Constitution requires that a declaration of emergency rule be supported by a two thirds majority of all members of each chamber of the National Assembly to take effect. The question, however, is how the actual number of members who voted in support of an issue can be determined in a voice vote.
Analysts say the development raises questions about the Green Chamber’s claim to running an open House. It also raises concern over how voting on the pending constitution alteration bills will pan out. The House is expected to vote on 43 of the bills, as part of the ongoing constitution review exercise, when it resumes. The proposed legislation covers 11 thematic areas, including local government reforms, inclusive governance, strengthening of institutions, the legislature, judicial reforms, human rights, devolution of powers, traditional institutions and fiscal reforms.
In previous assemblies, voting on constitution alteration was always done electronically, with the electronic board displaying how members voted on each issue. Ironically, after the renovation of the chamber, which cost N37 billion, the electronic board was removed and has not been replaced.
A former member of the House, Sergius Ogun, told Daily Sun that resort to voice votes in passing the State Police Bill and other constitutional matters was an aberration. He described the episode as a shame and urged Nigerians to challenge it.
Ogun, who represented Esan North East and Esan South West Federal Constituency of Edo State in the 8th and 9th Assemblies, said: “The two times we voted for constitutional amendment, when I was in the National Assembly, provisions were made for electronic voting. It (the passage of the State Police Bill by voice vote) is an aberration. I watched it, and I was surprised to hear the Speaker talking about people that signed in that day and people that couldn’t make it and then showed how they were going to vote and all that. That is not constitutional. It’s wrong. And I don’t know how far they will go with this illegality. They could not even read it clause by clause. They could not even read it out. It’s a shame.”
Pundits say the resort to voice votes has subjected decisions on constitutional issues to the whims and caprices of presiding officers, making the lawmaking process opaque. Public affairs analyst, Jide Ojo, told Daily Sun that it is impossible to determine a two thirds majority through a voice vote.
He noted that since the All Progressives Congress (APC) has a majority in the National Assembly, it should not be afraid to adopt electronic or manual voting in determining constitutional matters, as provided for in the Constitution.
According to him, “This is inexcusable and it is not in tandem with the laid down procedure for constitutional alteration. There is no way you can determine two thirds majority by voice vote. And this is laying the foundation for judicial nullification of some of these actions. If the APC believes it is the party in the majority, with two thirds in the Senate and the House of Representatives, it should not be afraid to have either electronic voting or manual voting where people will be counted.”
Ojo added that there was a reason the framers of the law prescribed a two thirds majority. “We know what the numbers are. In the House of Representatives, it is 240. In the Senate, it is 73. And there is a way you will determine two thirds of each. So, this whole issue of doing voice votes on sensitive national issues is inappropriate.”
What is the implication of sidestepping the explicit provisions of the Constitution in deciding alteration bills and other constitutional matters? Why is the electronic scoreboard in the chamber not working after N37 billion was spent on renovation? Is it deliberate? What should Nigerians expect in the determination of the pending alteration bills? Will they be decided by voice vote, or by a verifiable two thirds majority?