Ady Macauley Backs Supreme Court Challenge to Constitutional Amendment
Prominent legal practitioner and politician Ady Macauley has publicly voiced support for Hon. Osman Timbo’s potential Supreme Court challenge regarding the controversial passage of the 2026 Constitutional Amendment Bill. In doing so, Macauley challenged the Speaker of Parliament’s assertion that parliamentary rulings on the matter are final and exempt from judicial review.
Speaking on the dispute, Macauley stated his belief that a majority of All Peoples Congress (APC) stakeholders support taking the matter to the highest court to test the legal and constitutional integrity of the Bill's passage. "I’ll support Hon. Timbo to go to the Supreme Court," Macauley affirmed.
Addressing the parliamentary walkout, Macauley emphasized that APC Members of Parliament exercised their constitutional right to abstain or leave the chamber. He argued that their staged walkout does not negate or lower the statutory constitutional thresholds required for passing an amendment.
Macauley directly contested the Speaker's claim of final authority over the disputed vote, maintaining that parliamentary actions involving procedural law remain subject to judicial oversight. "The Speaker cannot judge that what he said is final," Macauley noted, pointing to legal precedents where Speaker decisions on procedural law were subject to review and overrule by the courts.
At the center of the controversy is Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution, which governs the voting threshold for constitutional alterations. Macauley alleged that "the Speaker breached Section 108," which mandates that any amendment Bill receive the affirmative votes of no less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament at the required readings.
The debate follows growing friction over whether the required parliamentary quorum and voting majorities were lawfully satisfied after Opposition lawmakers vacated the chamber.
Macauley’s stance reinforces expectations of a formal constitutional lawsuit to settle the authority of parliamentary rulings versus judicial review.
Comments