Follow Us on Google
As the debate over the creation of state police gathers momentum, Ondo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr Kayode Ajulo, SAN, has described decentralised policing as a constitutional and security imperative, arguing that Nigeria can no longer rely solely on a centrally controlled police system to address its diverse security challenges.
In this interview, Ajulo speaks on the proposed constitutional amendment, concerns over abuse by governors, funding challenges and the safeguards required to ensure state policing strengthens rather than undermines democracy.
What are your thoughts on state police?
My position is rooted in the principles of federalism. True federalism demands that constituent units possess the instruments of self government, including the capacity to maintain law and order within their territories. The current arrangement under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for a single police force for the federation, reflects a highly centralised model that has struggled to respond effectively to the country’s diverse security realities.
State police, properly structured, is not merely desirable but imperative. In a federation of over 200 million people with varying security challenges, a single command structure in Abuja cannot adequately address banditry in Zamfara, militancy in the Niger Delta or urban crime in Lagos. Drawing from the experience of Ondo State and the success of the Amotekun Corps, decentralised policing brings governance closer to the people, improves intelligence gathering and strengthens accountability.
Are you satisfied with the way the Federal Government has approached the issue?
The Federal Government has demonstrated considerable commitment by supporting the reform process. The broad support it has received in the National Assembly suggests a growing national consensus on the need for decentralised policing. The progress made so far reflects an appreciation of the need to align Nigeria’s security architecture with contemporary realities.
What is your assessment of the constitutional amendment passed by the National Assembly?
The proposal represents a significant realignment of powers within the federation. By moving policing to the Concurrent Legislative List, it creates a framework for both federal and state police structures while establishing minimum national standards. It also incorporates safeguards, including oversight mechanisms and provisions for federal intervention in exceptional circumstances. The amendment is not perfect, but it provides a solid foundation upon which a more responsive and effective security architecture can be built.
Is the amendment robust enough given its importance to national security?
It lays an important foundation, but constitutional amendments are, by nature, enabling instruments. The details will ultimately determine success. Issues such as funding mechanisms, recruitment standards, training protocols and operational coordination must be addressed through subsidiary legislation. Without clear implementation frameworks, even the most well intentioned constitutional provisions may fall short of their objectives.
What areas would you recommend for further amendment or strengthening?
Other News
Four areas stand out. First, the independence of State Police Service Commissions should be strengthened through broader stakeholder representation to reduce the risk of political interference. Second, there should be a clear funding framework, including the possibility of federal support mechanisms that can assist states with limited resources. Third, the conditions for federal intervention should be clearly defined and subject to judicial and legislative oversight. Finally, recruitment, training and accountability standards should be uniform across the country to ensure professionalism and respect for fundamental rights.
Are fears about governors abusing state police powers justified?
The fears are valid but should not be exaggerated. Power can be abused in any system, which is why strong institutions are essential. The answer is not to reject state police but to create safeguards that prevent abuse. Independent oversight bodies, transparent funding structures, judicial review and federal backstops can provide the necessary checks and balances. Valid fears demand valid safeguards, otherwise we risk replacing one form of centralised abuse with multiple localised versions.
Could state police become a tool for suppressing opposition voices?
That possibility exists if appropriate safeguards are absent. In any democracy, law enforcement agencies can become instruments of political control if institutions are weak. However, a properly designed state police system should operate within the framework of the rule of law. The real protection for opposition groups lies in an independent judiciary, a free press and an active citizenry. Federal law enforcement agencies would also continue to exercise jurisdiction over national offences, creating an additional layer of balance.
Funding is often cited as a major challenge. Could the initiative fail in less affluent states?
Funding is indeed the Achilles heel of the reform. Policing is resource intensive, requiring investment in personnel, training, equipment, technology and welfare. Some states may struggle to sustain these costs on their own. That is why I support mechanisms such as performance based grants or equalisation frameworks that can help less endowed states maintain acceptable standards. Federalism should combine autonomy with solidarity. No state should be left unable to provide adequate security simply because of limited resources.
Some critics argue that restricting federal police intervention could endanger democracy. What is your view?
A complete prohibition on federal intervention would be problematic. The federation has a constitutional responsibility to preserve national unity and maintain public order. The proposed framework wisely allows intervention in cases of serious breakdown of law and order, subject to defined procedures and oversight. That balance is essential. It prevents excessive central control while ensuring that the federal government can act when the stability of the republic is threatened.
What are your final thoughts on the state police debate?
State police is not merely a policy option, it is a necessary response to the realities confronting the country. The experience of regional security initiatives such as Amotekun has demonstrated that localised policing can work when anchored on community engagement, professionalism and respect for the law. What is required now is careful implementation, sustainable funding and strong accountability mechanisms. If these elements are put in place, state police can significantly strengthen Nigeria’s security architecture and deepen the country’s federal system. The opportunity before us is historic, and it should not be wasted.
