Again, Reps Defer Consideration of Constitution-Review Report

The House of Representatives on Thursday once more postponed debate on the long-anticipated report from the committee tasked with reviewing the 1999 Constitution (as amended), citing the need for lawmakers to have additional time to study the extensive proposals and engage with their constituents.

The delay followed concerns that many legislators had not yet received printed copies of the committee’s documents, limiting their ability to contribute effectively.

At a Committee of the Whole session presided over by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, the chamber agreed to defer the matter to a future legislative day.

Several lawmakers emphasized the importance of caution, noting that constitutional amendments require thorough analysis and public consultation.

Sensitive proposals, such as the creation of state police, provisions for independent candidacy, special seats for women, and adjustments to budget timelines for federal and state executives, were highlighted as needing further scrutiny.

Proponents of the postponement also stressed the need for grassroots engagement and feedback from traditional and civic leaders.

However, not all members supported the decision. Some warned that repeated delays could erode public confidence and disrupt the timeline initially outlined by the committee.

They argued that earlier commitments to dedicate consecutive sittings to the report risk being undermined if the exercise continues to be rescheduled.

After the vote to defer, the Deputy Speaker instructed the Clerk to circulate copies of the report to all members ahead of the next session.

Lawmakers were urged to use the intervening period to consult their constituents and other stakeholders to ensure that future debates are substantive.

The House leadership had previously indicated that the review process would span consecutive legislative days, with the expectation to conclude deliberations later in December.

Civil society organizations and legal experts monitoring the process have called for wide public participation and transparency, stressing that any constitutional amendment should reflect national consensus rather than narrow political interests.

With the exercise postponed again, attention now turns to whether the House can meet its deadlines while ensuring adequate scrutiny and inclusive input.