Over Passing Of Constitutional Amendment Bill… Will Parliament Speaker Face Treason?

Nicol-Wilson & Co., Malaika Chambers, has challenged the constitutionality of Parliament’s August 10, 2026 proceedings on the 1991 Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025.

In a letter to the Speaker of Parliament, the law firm argues that Parliament failed to meet the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament under Section 108(2)(b).

The firm says Parliament instead relied on Section 91(1), which provides for decisions by a majority of members present and voting.

The lawyers argue that Section 108(2)(b) is the specific provision governing constitutional amendments and cannot be overridden by the general voting rule in Section 91(1).

They further contend that the withdrawal of most APC MPs from the sitting meant the required two-thirds threshold was not achieved.

The firm also disputes reliance on Section 94(2), arguing that the provision does not shield Parliament or the Speaker from judicial scrutiny when the issue concerns compliance with the Constitution itself.

Nicol-Wilson & Co. says the Supreme Court should ultimately declare the purported amendment invalid if it finds that the constitutionally required threshold was not met.

The legal challenge comes as the Speaker has indicated that the constitutional issues surrounding the amendment will be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.