Tinubu Rejects Two National Assembly Bills, Cites Constitutional Defects
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- President Bola Tinubu rejected two bills passed by the National Assembly, citing constitutional and drafting defects.
- The affected bills were amendments to the Raw Materials Research and Development Council Act and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria Act.
- Tinubu explained that the bills contained flaws that would undermine their legal effectiveness and clarity if enacted in their current form.
President Bola Tinubu has refused to assent to two bills passed by the National Assembly, citing significant constitutional, drafting, and structural deficiencies. The President's decision, communicated through separate letters to the Senate, affects the Raw Materials Research and Development Council (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria (Establishment) Amendment Bill.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio read the communications during plenary and referred them to the Senate Committee on Rules and Business for review. Tinubu invoked Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution, stating that the bills contained defects that would hinder their legal effectiveness.
Regarding the Raw Materials Research and Development Council (Amendment) Bill, Tinubu noted major drafting flaws and structural inconsistencies that rendered it incoherent. He pointed out that the long title failed to capture the bill's main objective of promoting raw material development and supporting local manufacturing. Inconsistencies were also found in Section 2, which incorrectly presented the Council's functions as legislative objectives.
Tinubu also declined assent to the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria (Establishment) Amendment Bill. He argued that certain provisions sought to grant the Institute regulatory powers beyond its statutory mandate. While acknowledging commendable amendments, he stated that some clauses would impose obligations and enforcement powers the Institute is not legally empowered to exercise.
These erroneous insertions make the Bill incoherent and difficult to comprehend within the context of the Principal Act. Accordingly, the Bill as currently proposed is disjointed.
Originally published by ThisDay. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.