The nation’s apex legislative institution has moved the 2026 constitutional alteration process to the 36 State Houses of Assembly, beginning the crucial concurrence stage with only the State Policing bill slated for deliberation. Sunday Aborisade reports.
Nigeria’s latest attempt to alter the 1999 Constitution has entered a new phase, with the National Assembly transmitting an aspect of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, to the 36 State Houses of Assembly for consideration.
At least 24 states must approve the bill before the process can advance. While state police dominates the exercise, dozens of other reform proposals remain before the federal lawmakers,
The transmission, effected on September 16 by the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, formally brings the state legislatures into a process that cannot be completed without their constitutionally prescribed concurrence.
Under Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution, constitutional alteration is not solely a federal legislative affair. After the National Assembly considers and passes an alteration bill, the Houses of Assembly of the states must also participate by approving the proposal through resolutions.
For the current exercise, at least two-thirds of the 36 state legislatures, which is 24 assemblies, must support the bill before the constitutional process can move to its subsequent stage.
The development has consequently shifted the immediate responsibility for the next stage from the National Assembly to the state legislatures, each of which is expected to examine the proposed alteration according to its own legislative procedures.
Ogunlana, in his statement announcing the transmission, urged the state assemblies to consider the bill and communicate their resolutions to the National Assembly after completing their deliberations.
He also introduced a 30-day administrative window for the state legislatures to complete the exercise and return their decisions. Significantly, however, he made clear that the 30-day period is not a constitutional deadline.
The distinction is important because Section 9 does not prescribe a specific period within which state Houses of Assembly must communicate their decisions on constitutional alteration bills.
The timeframe is therefore intended to promote an orderly and coordinated process rather than create a statutory deadline for the states.
Beyond the procedural development, the transmission has drawn attention to the substance of the proposal that has so far secured the approval of both chambers of the National Assembly: the proposed constitutional framework for state police.
The State Police Bill has emerged as the most advanced proposal in the current constitutional review exercise.
The Senate approved the State Police constitutional alteration bill in June, while the House of Representatives subsequently considered and passed the executive version in July.
The proposal is designed to establish a constitutional basis for state police services alongside a federal police structure.
The transmission to the states therefore represents a significant procedural step for a reform that has generated sustained public and institutional debate over the appropriate structure for policing in a federal system.
Under the proposed arrangement, policing would no longer be based exclusively on the existing federal structure. Instead, the constitutional framework would provide for Federal and State Police Services, with the proposed state services expected to exercise policing functions within their respective jurisdictions.
The proposal also contains provisions intended to define the relationship between the federal and state police authorities, including the circumstances under which federal intervention could occur.
According to details reported on the bill, the Federal Police Service would retain responsibility for areas including national security, terrorism, cybercrime, interstate crimes, arms trafficking and international criminal networks, while state police would focus principally on policing within their respective territories.
The proposal also provides for circumstances in which the President could temporarily assume operational control of a state police service. Such intervention would be subject to specified conditions and procedural requirements, including written authorisation and notification to relevant constitutional institutions.
The design of the proposed system thus seeks to address two questions simultaneously: how policing can be brought closer to communities, and how a decentralised police structure can operate within a national security framework.
The National Assembly’s transmission of the bill now places these questions before the state legislatures.
The mathematics of the process is straightforward but constitutionally significant. Nigeria has 36 State Houses of Assembly. Two-thirds of that number is 24.
Consequently, the proposed alteration must secure approval from at least 24 state legislatures before the National Assembly can take the next constitutional step.
This requirement underscores the federal character of Nigeria’s constitutional amendment procedure.
The state assemblies are not merely being asked to acknowledge a decision already taken in Abuja. Their resolutions form an essential component of the constitutional process. Ogunlana accordingly emphasised that the National Assembly recognised the constitutional responsibilities and independence of the state legislatures.
The Clerk said the transmission was intended to facilitate the discharge of the states’ constitutional role and not to dictate the outcome of their deliberations.
That distinction could become particularly relevant as individual states assess the implications of the proposed reforms for their own institutions, finances, security structures and administrative responsibilities.
For the state assemblies, the exercise is therefore both legislative and constitutional. Their decisions will determine whether the particular alteration transmitted to them has secured the state-level concurrence required by Section 9.
Once the resolutions are returned, the National Assembly will determine the next steps in accordance with the Constitution.
The wider constitutional agenda
The latest transmission should not, however, be interpreted as the completion of the wider 2026 constitutional review exercise. The current review process began with a much broader menu of proposals.
According to records of the exercise, 37 priority constitutional alteration bills emerged from a much larger pool of proposals that had undergone legislative consideration and public consultation.
The proposals cover electoral reform, judicial administration, policing, local government, citizenship, representation, human rights, legislative administration, devolution of powers, fiscal accountability and traditional institutions.
But the State Police Bill has so far moved further than the other proposals.
Reports following the September 16, 2026 transmission indicated that the state police proposal was the only constitutional alteration proposal from the current exercise to have secured passage by both chambers and consequently become eligible for transmission to the states.
The other proposals still require further consideration and voting by the National Assembly before they can enter the concurrence stage.
That distinction is important because the phrase “constitutional amendment bills” can create the impression that all the proposals emerging from the review exercise have now been placed before the state legislatures.They have not.
The wider reform package remains before the National Assembly at different stages of consideration. Among the pending proposals are measures affecting Nigeria’s electoral system.
One proposal seeks changes to the constitutional framework governing State Independent Electoral Commissions, including provisions relating to appointments and functions.
Another seeks to create an Electoral Offences Commission with responsibility for investigating and prosecuting electoral offences independently of the Independent National Electoral Commission.
There is also a proposal for independent candidacy, which would potentially allow qualified Nigerians to contest specified elective positions without sponsorship by registered political parties, subject to conditions contained in the proposed constitutional framework.
The electoral proposals are particularly significant because they touch on the architecture through which political competition is organised and regulated.
Yet none can proceed to the state concurrence stage until they have passed the requisite legislative stages at the National Assembly.
The constitutional review package also contains substantial proposals concerning the judiciary. Among them are proposals seeking to shorten the period for determining pre-election and post-election cases at trial level, alongside changes to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Other proposals address the financing of the courts, the National Judicial Council, judicial appointments and removal procedures, remuneration and pensions of judicial officers. There are also proposals concerning the jurisdiction of various superior courts in relation to electoral offences and other areas of law.
Taken together, the judicial proposals seek to alter aspects of the constitutional architecture within which Nigeria’s justice system operates.
But, like the electoral reforms, these measures remain dependent on further action by the National Assembly before they can be subjected to the state-level concurrence procedure.
Another major strand of the constitutional review concerns the relationship between the federal government, states and local governments.
One proposal seeks constitutional recognition of local governments as a distinct third tier of government, with defined powers and safeguards. Another proposes the establishment of Auditors-General for local governments and Federal Capital Territory Area Councils.
There are also proposals dealing with financial accountability, including requirements for government agencies and statutory bodies to submit financial statements and for Auditor-General’s reports to be publicly disclosed.
Devolution of powers is another major component. Proposals in this area include moving the construction and maintenance of non-federal roads to the Concurrent Legislative List, thereby allowing both federal and state governments to legislate on the matter.
Tourism is also proposed for movement to the Concurrent List, while quarantine is another area identified for possible transfer from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List.
These proposals reflect a broader constitutional question that has remained part of Nigeria’s federalism debate: how responsibilities and resources should be distributed among the different levels of government.
The review package also extends into representation and citizenship. One proposal seeks to address the constitutional treatment of foreign spouses of Nigerian women, while another contemplates citizenship by investment subject to prescribed conditions.
There is also a proposal for special seats for women in the National and State Houses of Assembly as a temporary measure aimed at addressing women’s representation.
Human rights are equally represented in the proposed alterations. Among the proposals is one seeking explicit constitutional recognition of the public display or parade of arrested persons by law enforcement agencies as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Another seeks protection for unborn children carried by persons sentenced to death, while another proposes recognition of a clean, safe and healthy environment as a fundamental constitutional right.
These proposals demonstrate the breadth of the constitutional review exercise beyond the immediate debate over policing.
Several proposals concern the legislative branch itself. One seeks formal constitutional recognition for the National Assembly Service Commission and State Houses of Assembly Service Commissions.
Another seeks to define the constitutional status of the Clerk to the National Assembly and clerks of state Houses of Assembly as heads of legislative services.
Other proposals deal with the timing of annual appropriation bills, inauguration of lawmakers elected through bye-elections and safeguards relating to the removal of presiding officers of state legislatures.
There are also proposals affecting executive institutions, including one seeking separation of the offices of Attorney-General and Minister or Commissioner of Justice.
Traditional institutions are similarly covered, with proposals for State Councils of Traditional Rulers and constitutional provisions concerning their funding.
Race Against The Legislative Calendar
The timing of the wider constitutional review is another issue. The 10th National Assembly has until June, 2027, when its tenure ends, while political activity for the 2027 elections is already intensifying.
The broader the reform agenda, therefore, the greater the legislative workload required to move individual proposals through the National Assembly, secure the required majorities in both chambers and subsequently obtain concurrence from at least 24 state assemblies.
For the State Police Bill, the process has already reached the state legislatures.
For the remaining proposals, however, the legislative journey is still incomplete.
This creates an important distinction between the constitutional review exercise as a whole and the particular amendment currently before the states.
The transmission of the Sixth Alteration Bill is consequently both an advance and a reminder of the unfinished nature of the broader reform programme.
For the 36 State Houses of Assembly, the next phase will be defined by legislative scrutiny rather than political declarations.
Each assembly is expected to follow its own procedure in considering the transmitted bill and subsequently communicate its resolution to the National Assembly.
The National Assembly has requested that this be done within 30 days for administrative coordination, while expressly acknowledging that the Constitution itself does not impose that deadline.
What follows will depend on the resolutions returned by the states. If the required number of state legislatures approves the bill, the constitutional alteration process can advance to its subsequent stage. If the threshold is not reached, the proposal cannot proceed in the manner contemplated by Section 9 of the 1999 constitution.
The immediate constitutional spotlight is therefore no longer confined to the chambers in Abuja. It has moved across the federation to the 36 state capitals.
For Nigeria’s constitutional development, the significance of the moment lies not only in the state police proposal itself but also in the demonstration of how the country’s federal legislative architecture is designed to work.
The National Assembly has taken part of the process to the states. The state legislatures must now consider the bill independently, exercise their constitutional powers and return their resolutions.
Beyond this particular bill lies the much larger question of whether the 10th National Assembly can complete the remaining elements of its constitutional reform agenda before the end of its tenure.
For now, however, the next chapter belongs to the 36 State Houses of Assembly.