As lawmakers move closer to decentralising policing, supporters see a solution to Nigeria’s worsening insecurity, while critics warn it could hand governors dangerous powers and deepen existing governance failures.
For decades, Nigeria has operated one of the most centralised policing systems in the world.
From the creeks of the Niger Delta to the forests of Zamfara and the highways linking Abuja to Kaduna, policing decisions ultimately flow from a command structure headquartered in Abuja. State governors, despite being constitutionally designated as chief security officers of their states, exercise limited authority over police operations within their jurisdictions.
Now, that arrangement may be on the verge of a historic transformation.
The House of Representatives recently passed a constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish state police, marking one of the most significant attempts to restructure Nigeria’s security architecture since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999.
The proposal comes amid worsening insecurity across the country, including terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, separatist agitation and organised criminal activities that have exposed the limitations of the existing federal policing model.
Supporters argue that decentralised policing will improve intelligence gathering, accelerate emergency response and strengthen community trust. Opponents, however, fear that state police could become instruments of political oppression in the hands of powerful governors.
As the debate intensifies, Nigerians are increasingly divided over whether state police represent a long-awaited solution or a potential source of new problems.
What the Bill Proposes
The constitutional amendment seeks to alter Sections 214 and 215 of the 1999 Constitution to formally create a dual policing structure consisting of both federal and state police forces.
Under the proposal, state governments would be empowered to establish, fund and manage their own police organisations through legislation passed by their respective State Houses of Assembly.
The bill also provides that state police institutions must comply with national minimum standards established by the National Assembly before commencing operations.
Governors would have authority to appoint State Commissioners of Police, subject to confirmation by State Houses of Assembly and oversight mechanisms involving the Nigeria Police Council.
Supporters of the reform say the proposal reflects growing recognition that the current centralised system is struggling to cope with Nigeria’s complex and evolving security challenges.
Why Calls for State Police Have Grown Louder
Nigeria currently has a police-to-population ratio far below international recommendations.
With more than 220 million people spread across 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, the Nigeria Police Force faces enormous operational demands. In many rural communities, residents may not see a police officer for weeks.
Security incidents often require approvals and coordination from command structures located hundreds of kilometres away from where crimes occur.
According to security analyst Captain Abdullahi Bakoji (retd), decentralised policing could help bridge this gap.
“State police will help in bringing security closer to the people because indigenes are always much more familiar with the terrain, the culture, attitude and behaviours of their people,” he said.
Supporters contend that officers recruited from local communities possess a better understanding of local languages, geography, customs and social dynamics.
They argue that such familiarity can improve intelligence gathering and strengthen relationships between law enforcement agencies and residents.
Advocates also point to the emergence of regional security outfits such as Amotekun in the South-West, Ebube Agu in the South-East and various vigilante groups in northern states as evidence that communities increasingly seek localised security solutions.
The Argument for Local Knowledge
One of the strongest arguments in favour of state police is operational efficiency. Security experts note that criminal networks often exploit gaps in intelligence and delayed responses from security agencies.
Under a decentralised structure, state police officers could theoretically respond more quickly to emerging threats because they are based within affected communities and understand local dynamics.
Professor Murtala Muhammad, Vice-President of the Nigerian Political Science Association, believes decentralised policing is consistent with international federal practices.
He points to countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany and India, where state or provincial police forces coexist with federal law enforcement institutions.
According to him, such arrangements can enhance security effectiveness when supported by strong accountability systems and clearly defined jurisdictions.
Supporters also argue that state police could reduce overreliance on military deployments for internal security operations.
Over the years, the Nigerian military has increasingly assumed policing responsibilities in various parts of the country, raising concerns about the militarisation of domestic security.
Advocates say strengthening local law enforcement could allow the military to focus on its primary constitutional role of defending the nation’s territorial integrity.
The Fear of Political Abuse
Despite the potential benefits, concerns about political manipulation remain the most significant obstacle to public acceptance of state police.
Nigeria’s democratic experience has repeatedly demonstrated how state institutions can be influenced by political interests.
Critics argue that granting governors control over police structures could create opportunities for abuse, particularly during elections.
Captain Bakoji warned that state police could be deployed against opposition politicians, civil society groups and critics of state governments.
“This could be done through using the force to suppress gatherings and campaigns of the opposition and also arrest citizens that oppose government policies or agendas,” he said.
The concern is not merely theoretical. Many observers point to the conduct of State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs), which have frequently been accused of organising local government elections that overwhelmingly favour ruling parties.
In several states, opposition parties rarely secure victories in local elections, fuelling allegations that governors already exert excessive influence over democratic institutions.
Critics fear that state police could further strengthen executive dominance at the subnational level.
Governors and Existing Accountability Challenges
Sceptics of the proposal argue that many state governments have yet to demonstrate sufficient institutional maturity to manage police organisations responsibly. Several states continue to struggle with salary arrears, pension obligations and basic public services.
Labour unions frequently report delays in wage payments, while local government autonomy remains a contentious issue despite judicial pronouncements.
Analysts argue that if some states cannot consistently fund teachers, healthcare workers and civil servants, sustaining professional police organisations may prove difficult.
Read also:
- Ex- VON Boss calls for 3% Federation Account Funding For State Police
- Reps back state police, adopt 18 constitutional amendment proposals
- House of Representatives to vote on state police bill Thursday
The financial burden of recruitment, training, equipment procurement, forensic services, communication infrastructure and personnel welfare could stretch already constrained state budgets.
Security experts also warn that disparities in state revenues could create unequal policing standards across the federation.
Oil-producing and commercially vibrant states may be able to maintain sophisticated security institutions, while poorer states could struggle to recruit and retain qualified personnel. Such disparities could create uneven security outcomes across the country.
What the Inspector-General Is Saying
Amid growing debate, Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu has sought to reassure officers and members of the Nigeria Police Force that the proposed reform does not threaten the existence of the federal police.
During a recent visit to the Jigawa State Police Command, the police chief stated that state police would complement rather than replace the federal policing system.
According to him, concerns among officers regarding their future within the force are understandable but unnecessary.
His remarks reflect one of the central features of the proposed amendment: the continued existence of a federal police structure alongside state police organisations.
Under the proposed framework, federal police would remain responsible for national security coordination and intervention in situations involving the breakdown of law and order, among other circumstances defined by law.
Ezekwesili: State Police Alone Will Not Solve Nigeria’s Problems
Former Minister of Education, Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, has introduced another dimension to the debate.
In a public memorandum, she argued that state police may be necessary but are insufficient to address Nigeria’s deeper governance and security challenges.
According to her, the country’s insecurity stems from broader constitutional and structural problems rooted in decades of excessive centralisation.
She contends that the 1999 Constitution concentrates too much political, fiscal and administrative authority at the federal level, creating inefficiencies that extend beyond policing.
For Ezekwesili, the conversation should not focus solely on whether Nigeria should establish state police but whether the country is prepared to undertake broader constitutional reforms that redistribute powers across all levels of government.
Her position reflects a growing school of thought that views security challenges as symptoms of wider governance failures rather than problems that can be solved exclusively through institutional restructuring.
Lessons from Other Federations
Supporters frequently cite federal countries such as the United States, Canada, India and Germany as examples of successful decentralised policing.
However, experts caution against simplistic comparisons. These countries operate within institutional environments characterised by stronger judicial independence, more effective oversight systems, clearer accountability frameworks and relatively stable democratic traditions.
In the United States, for example, local police departments coexist with state police agencies and federal institutions such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Multiple layers of oversight, including courts, legislatures, civilian review boards and independent media organisations, help monitor police conduct.
In Canada and Germany, policing arrangements are similarly supported by well-developed institutions and predictable funding mechanisms.
Analysts note that replicating such systems in Nigeria would require more than constitutional amendments. It would demand substantial investments in training, oversight, technology, professional standards and institutional safeguards.
The Safeguards Debate
Perhaps the most important question is not whether state police should exist but how they should be designed.
Many experts agree that decentralised policing could be beneficial if accompanied by strong safeguards.
Suggested measures include independent police service commissions, secure tenure for police leadership, judicial oversight, legislative scrutiny and national professional standards.
Others advocate a recruitment system that balances local representation with merit-based selection to prevent ethnic or political capture of state police organisations.
Some analysts also recommend creating mechanisms that allow federal authorities to intervene when state police are used unlawfully or become ineffective.
Without such protections, critics warn that decentralisation could simply transfer existing policing problems from Abuja to state capitals.
A Defining Test for Nigeria’s Federalism
The state police debate has evolved into a broader conversation about the nature of Nigeria’s federation. Supporters see the proposal as a long-overdue recognition that security challenges vary across regions and require locally tailored solutions.
Opponents caution that decentralisation without accountability could create new risks while failing to resolve existing ones. The constitutional amendment still faces several hurdles. The Senate must approve the proposal, after which at least two-thirds of state Houses of Assembly must endorse it before it can be transmitted to the President for assent.
Whether the bill ultimately succeeds or fails, the discussion has already highlighted a central dilemma confronting Nigeria: how to balance the need for effective local security with the equally important need to protect democratic freedoms and prevent abuse of power.
The answer may determine not only the future of policing but also the future direction of Nigeria’s federal system.
For many Nigerians, the question is no longer whether change is necessary. The real debate is whether state police will deliver the security gains its supporters promise—or whether it could introduce a new set of political and institutional challenges that the country is not yet prepared to manage.
