Follow Us on Google
•CSOs, stakeholders, regional leaders divided on state police
By Fred Itua, Adesuwa Tsan, Ndubuisi Orji and Idu Jude, Abuja; Tony John, Port Harcourt; Jude Dangwam, Jos; Stanley Uzoaru, Owerri; Scholastica Hir, Makurdi; Noah Ebije, Kaduna; Femi Folaranmi, Yenagoa and John Adams, Minna
The passage of the State Police Bill by the House of Representatives, followed by its structural progression through the Senate, represents a significant legislative pivot in the history of law enforcement within the Nigerian federation. Sponsored in the lower legislative chamber by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, along with 14 other lawmakers, the bill obtained a significant statutory endorsement with 289 affirmative votes during its key parliamentary divisions.
The legislative effort aims to fundamentally alter Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. By doing so, the bill seeks to dismantle the decades long exclusive federal monopoly over internal security and replace it with a dual policing framework consisting of a distinct Federal Police Service and autonomous State Police Services.
As a constitutional amendment, the progression of the bill from the National Assembly to the sub-national legislatures represents a critical administrative phase. Under the strict amendment protocols defined by the Nigerian constitution, structural alterations to such foundational provisions require the formal ratification of at least two thirds of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, which amounts to a minimum of 24 states, before the legislation can be forwarded to the President for executive assent.
This analysis provides a neutral, multi dimensional assessment of the institutional, financial, structural, and political dynamics of this proposed reform, drawing directly from the testimonies, positions, and structural models articulated by civil society organizations, security experts, legal practitioners, and regional leaders.
The statutory core of the State Police Bill introduces an institutional separation of powers designed to balance sub-national operational autonomy with centralized oversight. The legislative draft addresses the distribution of administrative authority, appointment mechanisms, and federal intervention triggers. Under the new framework, the President retains the power to appoint the Inspector-General of Police. However, this appointment must be made strictly on the advice of the National Police Council and remains subject to formal confirmation by the Senate.
At the sub-national level, State Commissioners of Police are to be appointed by the respective state governors. To limit unchecked executive authority at the state level, these appointments must be recommended by the National Police Council and confirmed by the relevant State House of Assembly.
A key aspect of the bill is the preservation of federal supervisory powers designed to prevent state-level insularity or systemic institutional failure. The Federal Police Service is granted explicit constitutional authority to intervene directly in state police operations under specific legal conditions, including a systemic breakdown of public order within a state, clear and verifiable threats to national security, the documented abuse of police powers by sub-national authorities, and serious, systemic violations of the fundamental rights of citizens within the state jurisdiction.
This dual-tiered administrative arrangement attempts to resolve the tension between the need for localized law enforcement and the preservation of national territorial integrity.
The debate over the operational rollout of the State Police Bill highlights a clear division between those advocating for rapid implementation and those emphasizing the practical timelines required for institutional development.
Proponents of rapid reform view the constitutional process as an urgent necessity driven by deteriorating security conditions across several regions. Princess Hamman-Obels, Director of The Electoral Hub, notes that widespread insecurity has stalled socio-economic development across Nigeria for more than fifteen years. Her assessment emphasizes that rural populations have been forced to abandon agricultural lands, local economies have contracted, and inter-state travel has become highly insecure due to the activities of violent non-state actors.
Supporting this view, the Coalition of South East Youth Leaders, frames the immediate passage and implementation of the bill as a national imperative tied directly to public safety and the protection of citizens. Proponents argue that state legislators must treat the ratification process with urgency, asserting that any legislative delay directly prolongs the vulnerability of rural and border communities where the current centralised police presence is minimal or absent. From this perspective, structural delays are seen as a failure of legislative responsibility in the face of ongoing human and economic losses.
A major point of contention within the transitional debate is the proposed 50 month implementation timeline for the full deployment of state police commands. Civil rights activist Idris Usman argues against this extended schedule, stating that a four year rollout is unsuited to the urgency of the country security challenges. Usman asserts that an extended administrative timeline leaves vulnerable populations exposed to banditry and organized crime for too long.
He argues that preparatory administrative work, including the establishment of State Police Commissions, the allocation of state budgetary resources, and structural coordination with the federal executive, must begin immediately upon presidential assent rather than being deferred across a multi year schedule.
To counter claims that immediate implementation is logistically impossible, retired Assistant Inspector-General of Police Austin Iwar provides a practical framework for personnel deployment. Iwar notes that individual states would not need to recruit, vet, and train an entirely new law enforcement workforce from scratch. Instead, the transition would primarily involve seconding existing personnel from the Nigeria Police Force to their states of origin or previous local assignments.
This structural transfer would allow states to utilise an already trained and disciplined workforce, significantly reducing the time needed to build basic operational capacity.
The financial viability of sub-national policing is a central issue within the reform debate. Critics and proponents offer contrasting perspectives on the capacity of Nigeria 36 states to fund independent law enforcement structures. To resolve the fiscal challenges of a dual policing model, security experts have proposed structured, multi-tiered funding frameworks designed to distribute costs equitably between federal and state governments.
Iwar outlines a structured financial model based on a 60-40 division of labor. Under this framework, the Federal Government would remain responsible for 60 percent of total policing expenditure, focusing on capital-intensive procurement. This includes heavy tactical weaponry, armored fighting vehicles, communication satellites, aviation assets, and advanced drone technology requiring international clearance. The individual state governments would assume responsibility for the remaining 40 percent of the fiscal burden, covering localised operational expenses such as employee salaries, personnel welfare packages, localised intelligence networks, forensic laboratories, and the maintenance of physical police stations and barracks.
To supplement statutory budget lines, Iwar suggests the mandatory creation of State Police Trust Funds. These funds would pool contributions from private sector stakeholders, corporate organizations, and philanthropic foundations, providing a financial cushion to protect police operations from sudden fiscal shocks or fluctuations in state statutory allocations.
Security analyst Jackson Ojo emphasizes the need for strict financial guardrails to prevent political interference or fiscal neglect by state executives. Ojo argues that state police funding must flow through dedicated, ring-fenced accounts within the state budget. These accounts would be subject to mandatory annual audits conducted jointly by the state Auditor-General and independent oversight committees from the State House of Assembly. This framework aims to prevent governors from withholding operational funds as a tool for political coercion.
Steve Aluko, Director of the Civil Liberties Organisation, provides a practical solution for immediate funding by focusing on the reallocation of existing resources. Aluko notes that state governors and local government chairmen currently receive substantial, largely un-audited security votes. He argues that formalizing these existing allocations and redirecting them into the statutory budgets of the new state police services would provide immediate funding without requiring new taxes or causing fiscal strain.
Goddy Uwazuruike, former president of Aka Ikenga and delegate to the 2014 National Conference, addresses the issue from a political economy perspective. Uwazuruike asserts that concerns over sub-national funding limitations often stem from choices in resource allocation rather than an absolute lack of funds. He argues that by reducing administrative waste, such as excessive spending on executive travel and maintaining redundant fleets of official vehicles, states can free up the resources necessary to sustain a professional law enforcement structure.
Conversely, several analysts raise serious concerns regarding the financial health of sub-national governments and their capacity to manage long-term law enforcement costs. Olootu Bolaji Adeniji, an APC chieftain in Ogun State, cautions that many state governments currently struggle to meet basic financial obligations, including the payment of civil service salaries and pensions.
Adeniji argues that without major adjustments to the national revenue sharing formula to increase allocations to sub-national units, establishing state police forces could lead to underfunded, poorly equipped, and unpaid state commands, making them vulnerable to corruption.
Jonathan Vatsa, a former APC chieftain in Niger State, offers a down-to-earth critique by pointing out that several state governments have proven incapable of consistently funding, equipping, and managing basic community vigilante groups. Vatsa argues that if states struggle to manage low-intensity local watches, expecting them to run a modern, high-intensity police service is unrealistic. He warns that transferring police responsibilities to states without addressing underlying sub-national corruption and mismanagement will simply replicate federal structural failures at the local level.
Other News
Public affairs analyst Austin Onuoha raises a broader governance concern, pointing out that the majority of Nigerian states have failed to deliver adequate services in foundational sectors such as public education, healthcare, and basic infrastructure. Onuoha argues that sub-national administrations must first demonstrate competent management in these areas before being trusted with the complex responsibility of managing state-sanctioned armed forces.
The debate over the operational competence of state-level police forces contrasts the benefits of localised intelligence against the limitations of sub-national infrastructure. Supporters of decentralized policing argue that the current centralized model is structurally unsuited to modern, community-based law enforcement.
South East Youth leaders emphasise that the success of modern policing depends on localised intelligence, community trust, and rapid response times. They argue that state police forces, staffed by personnel familiar with local languages, geography, customs, and social dynamics, can gather actionable intelligence far more effectively than federal officers deployed from distant regions.
Aluko supports this point by citing international examples from other federal systems, such as the United States, Germany, and Australia, where sub-national and perimeter policing operate effectively alongside federal agencies. Aluko argues that Nigeria internal security challenges, such as rural banditry, highway robbery, and communal clashes, are inherently localized problems that require community-rooted law enforcement responses rather than military intervention.
Critics of the bill argue that sub-national forces lack the capacity to address sophisticated, cross-border criminal networks. Anthony Sani, former Secretary-General of the Arewa Consultative Forum, states that building operational capacity requires long-term, systematic investment in personnel numbers, advanced training, and technical equipment.
Sani cautions against viewing the mere creation of state police as a quick fix for insecurity, emphasizing that without a sustained commitment to institutional development, state forces will remain ineffective.
From a tactical perspective, General Jonathan Temlong, former Theatre Commander of the Multi-National Joint Taskforce North East, argues that state police forces are structurally unsuited to managing high-intensity security threats like entrenched terrorism or heavily armed insurgencies.
Temlong emphasizes that a police force is designed for civil law enforcement, not combat operations against militarized insurgent groups. He cautions that overstating the role of state police could lead to operational failures if they are deployed into situations that require conventional military force.
To ensure that state police forces operate at modern standards of professionalism, stakeholders emphasize the need for strict statutory baselines. Ojo argues that the enabling legislation must require state forces to integrate modern transparency tools from day one. This includes the mandatory use of body-worn cameras during public interactions, the creation of independent public complaint boards, and strict reporting requirements for all arrests and uses of force.
Comrade David West, Civil Liberties Organisation Chairman in Bayelsa State, highlights a key operational requirement, stating that state police forces must not concentrate their personnel and assets solely in state capitals and urban centers. West argues that if state forces neglect rural areas and border communities, they will simply repeat the mistakes of the current under-resourced federal model. State police commands must be structurally designed to project security into remote local government areas where state protection is most needed.
Lawyer and activist Sonayon Hunjo stresses that the success of the reform depends entirely on the political will to enforce strict standards of professionalism. Hunjo argues that without rigorous vetting, standardized training curricula, and clear legal boundaries, state police forces risk degrading into undisciplined local militias.
The most common objection to the state police proposal is the risk that state governors might abuse these forces for political purposes, using them to suppress opposition, manipulate local elections, or settle personal scores.
Constitutional lawyer Chief Festus Ogwuche provides a clear warning regarding the potential for political abuse at the sub-national level. Ogwuche points to intense political disputes, such as the ongoing institutional conflict between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor Nyesom Wike in Rivers State, as examples of situations that could become highly unstable if state police forces were under direct gubernatorial control.
He argues that in highly polarised political environments, a state-controlled police force could easily be turned into a partisan tool, escalating local political disputes into armed institutional standoffs.
However, Ogwuche also notes that the current Federal Police structure has faced similar criticisms of political manipulation by central authorities, indicating that the risk of abuse is an issue across all tiers of government.
To protect state police services from executive overreach, stakeholders have outlined several legal and administrative safeguards. Ojo proposes that administrative control over state police forces, including appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions, be removed from the governor direct oversight. Instead, control should be given to an independent State Police Commission.
To ensure balance, commission members would be appointed through a shared process involving the state executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and representatives from registered civil society organizations. South East youth leaders recommend enacting strict statutory prohibitions against the recruitment of political appointees, party loyalists, or members of informal local security groups into the state police.
They advocate for a transparent, merit-based recruitment process supervised by independent federal and state observers to ensure that admission is based strictly on qualifications and professional vetting.
Hon. Oludare Kadiri, former Deputy Speaker of the Ogun State House of Assembly, emphasizes that recruitment, operational deployment, and promotions must be insulated from political patronage. Kadiri argues that state police charters must include severe criminal penalties for any state official, including governors, who attempts to interfere with operational law enforcement decisions for political advantage.
Dave Ajetomobi, former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Ikeja Branch, introduces an alternative structure by suggesting the creation of regional policing frameworks. Under this model, states within a geopolitical zone would pool resources to form shared regional police commands. Ajetomobi argues that distributing command authority across multiple governors within a region would significantly reduce the ability of any single state executive to weaponize the police force for personal or local political ends, while also easing financial pressures through shared costs.
In contrast to these concerns, Festus Ebea, Edo State Commissioner for Public Security and Safety, calls for a more pragmatic view of the reform. Ebea argues that the potential for institutional abuse exists within any law enforcement structure, including the current federal model. He asserts that public debate should focus on the overall security benefits of localized policing, such as reduced crime rates and faster emergency response times, rather than focusing solely on worst-case political scenarios.
Because amending the constitution and deploying functional state police forces will take considerable time, security experts emphasise that the current federal system must maintain effective operations during the transition period.
Sani argues that federal authorities cannot afford to pause security efforts while waiting for legislative processes to conclude. He advocates for immediate investments in existing specialized units, specifically recommending a surge in forest guard operations. Sani notes that expanding targeted operations in forested areas and border regions would allow security forces to disrupt insurgent safe havens immediately, without requiring complex constitutional changes.
To maintain stability during the transition, Kadiri both emphasises the need for enhanced coordination between existing federal security agencies and recognised local security formations. He recommends that the Inspector-General of Police expand community policing initiatives and establish formal intelligence-sharing channels with state-backed vigilante groups and civil defense corps.
He said the collaborative approach aims to bridge current security gaps and maintain public safety while the legal and logistical architecture for state policing is being established.
The ongoing legislative process regarding the State Police Bill represents a critical structural decision for the Nigerian federation. The documentation and testimonies provided by security experts, legal scholars, and civil society leaders indicate a consensus that the current highly centralised internal security model requires reform.
The proposed dual policing framework attempts to address this by combining localised intelligence gathering with centralised federal safeguards. However, the analysis demonstrates that the success of this reform depends on resolving key operational details rather than simply passing the legislation.
The primary challenges facing the initiative, ensuring financial sustainability across economically diverse states, establishing strict institutional protections against political abuse, and managing the personnel transition effectively, require precise statutory planning.
As the bill moves to the State Houses of Assembly for constitutional review, the responsibilities of sub-national legislators extend beyond simply voting for or against the text. State assemblies must actively develop the corresponding local legal frameworks, independent oversight commissions, and ring-fenced funding structures necessary to ensure that the introduction of state policing improves public safety and strengthens constitutional governance across the federation.
