On state police

The idea of state police is certainly not new. Nigeria’s unending search for true federalism has thrown up a number of issues. State policing is one of them. It became a recurring decimal in national discourse since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. But I have never really been fascinated by the prospect of it. This is probably because its origin in Nigeria is more political than pragmatic. When a certain section of the country began to make a sing-song of the idea, they did not quite look beyond their nose to see and know how advanced democracies like the United States of America have been able to make and get the best out of this governance structure.

Instead , the Nigerian copycats have been more concerned with who wields what power and who is at the receiving end of it. In fact, the search for balance in the power equation has been the overriding reason for the agitation for state police from a section of the country. We have had situations in the past where electoral manipulation was blamed on the structure of the Nigerian police. Those who wielded power at the federal level were believed to have deployed the police as an instrument of coercion and suppression. Those who were not favoured in such situations have always argued that state policing will neutralize that concentration of power that gives those in authority at the federal level unfettered access to the use and abuse of police power.

Under the arrangement that we practise at moment, we have had state governors complain that their position as chief security officers of their states is only on paper. Th commissioners of police in various states are not answerable to the governors. They take orders from the centre. Governors of states wish for a change of this policing structure. It is clamours such as this that have made many to express worry that state policing will be abused by governors. The fear is that governors would use the arrangement to oppress and suppress their political opponents.

Beyond these, there have been fears that border on national security. Here, a different section of the country feels very suspicious about state policing. Elements within that substructure suspect that it is a clever way of devolving power to the states. Such devolution of power, they feel, could weaken the centre and lead to a situation where the sovereignty of the country could be challenged by a certain section or sections of the country. Those who want to sound extreme have even said that state policing is a subtle plot towards the gradual dismemberment of Nigeria.

But the arguments for or against state police have since shifted away from this narrow confine. The separatist argument has receded to the backwaters. What has assumed the centre stage now is insecurity. Those pushing for state police now feel that it is the solution to the insecurity that has crippled Nigeria.

That sounds simple enough. But it also appears simplistic because the issue may not be as straightforward as it is being canvassed at moment.

It is important to situate the insecurity that we suffer at moment properly. When we do, we will be in a position to find a reasoned solution to it. What Nigeria suffers today derives from a devious agenda of conquest emanating from the Fulani in Nigeria and across the Sahel. There is a deliberate and coordinated effort by the Fulani to infiltrate every corner of Nigeria, weaken the indigenous population through terrorist activities and take over their land. The areas primarily targeted for this agenda are Christian strongholds that the Fulani believe need to be neutralized and suppressed for their agenda to work. The Middle Belt region and the South of the country are the targets of this ongoing battle of conquest. But it is doubtful if governors in the targeted states understand this plot. I suspect that they do not. Political affiliations and interests have not made it possible for them to see clearly. Governors whose states have been pillaged and ravaged by Fulani terrorist activities have never been known to speak up. They are hiding behind the mask. They do not want to be seen to have said or done anything that will hurt their personal or political interests. And so they paper over open air terrorism. They do not condemn it in the way they should. Some do not even talk about it all. For this reason, terrorism flourishes and festers. Those who think that state policing will take care of this situation need to peep into the psychology of the governors of states in the targeted areas of the country. Do they have the clear eyes to see the true colour of terrorism? For now, they do not and state police will not give them a third eye. When this is the case, state police, when it comes, could become an impotent instrument that may not tackle the terrorism that is unsettling the country.

As a matter of fact, insecurity in the land is growing in leaps and bounds because there is no political will to tackle it. Both the centre and the component units place politics above security. The key players at these levels are more interested in feathering their political nests than in seeing to a safe and secure country. That is why Fulani terrorists are comfortably nestled in forests across the targeted areas and the concerned authorities are not doing anything about it. Security agencies know the various spots occupied by the terrorists but no effort is being made to dislodge them. Instead, they enjoy a free reign, killing and maiming at will. It takes the proper will to govern to tackle this menace. A state police structure cannot, overnight, erase the ingrained political incapacitation that makes terrorism to flourish. What will deal with the menace is a change of disposition on the part of the leadership.

Part of the problem is that we are dodging the issues. The other day, we were told that the Inspector-General of Police has ordered that small arms and light weapons in the hands of the citizenry be mopped up. In other words , the police are planning a crackdown on illegal possession of firearms. This is supposed to be a good measure. But the problem is that, without expressly stating so, it leaves room for selective application. Rather than labour in search of Nigerians with illegal arms, why don’t the police go for what is handy by penetrating the forests where terrorists are hiding and dispossessing them first and foremost? We should start from the known to the unknown, otherwise the whole exercise will be a wild goose chase.

Our present policing architecture, no doubt, can be improved upon. State policing could help substantially. But if we do not tackle the ingrained inhibitions that have rendered our central policing system ineffective, state policing, if it comes on stream, may not be the magic wand we are looking for.