Beyond State Police

As Nigeria moves closer to adopting state policing, the debate has shifted from whether the country needs a decentralised policing system to how it can establish one that is effective, adequately funded, accountable and insulated from political abuse, writes Linus Aleke

For more than two decades, the debate over state policing has remained one of the most contentious issues in Nigeria’s constitutional and security discourse. Rising insecurity, ranging from terrorism and banditry to kidnapping and communal violence, secessionist agitation and cult related violent extremism has repeatedly exposed the limitations of a highly centralised policing system, prompting renewed calls for a decentralised security architecture.

The conversation is not new. Before the military intervention in 1966, Nigeria’s regions operated their own police formations alongside the Native Authority Police, enabling local authorities to address security challenges within their jurisdictions. However, allegations of political intimidation and abuse by regional governments contributed to the eventual abolition of regional police under military rule. The 1979 and 1999 Constitutions subsequently entrenched a single Nigeria Police Force under the exclusive control of the Federal Government, leaving governors constitutionally designated as Chief Security Officers of their states but without operational control over the police.

In recent months, the debate has gathered fresh momentum, with the federal government signalling its support for the establishment of state police as part of broader efforts to address the country’s worsening security challenges. The ongoing constitutional amendment process in the National Assembly has also provided an opportunity for lawmakers and other stakeholders to consider the legal, institutional and financial frameworks required to establish a decentralised policing system capable of responding more effectively to local security threats.

It was against this backdrop that discussions at the ARISE Town Hall Meeting on Building a National Consensus for State Police and National Security, organised by the Chairman of ARISE/THISDAY Media Group, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, assumed greater significance.

Political leaders, security experts and policymakers broadly agreed that decentralised policing has become increasingly necessary. Their support, however, was accompanied by strong calls for constitutional safeguards, fiscal reforms, independent oversight and stronger local governance to ensure that state police do not become instruments of political abuse.

Among the issues that dominated the discussions, funding emerged as perhaps the most critical. The Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, argued that creating state police without addressing sustainable financing would amount to establishing institutions destined to fail.

According to him, discussions on state policing must first confront what he described as “the political economy of financing the police.”

He warned that inadequate funding could expose state police not only to political interference by governors but also to manipulation by wealthy individuals, criminal organisations and vested interests capable of influencing poorly funded institutions.

His solution was that financial independence must be built into the legal framework establishing state police. Rather than leaving funding entirely at the discretion of governors, Bamidele proposed constitutional first-line charge provisions similar to those enjoyed by the judiciary. Under such an arrangement, a constitutionally guaranteed percentage of every state’s budget would automatically accrue to the state police, while clear legal mechanisms would regulate access to those funds.

The proposal is intended to address one of the principal concerns surrounding decentralised policing—that governors could financially reward compliant police commands while starving independent ones of resources. Bamidele also argued that effective community policing cannot exist without functional local governments.

He maintained that local government autonomy must accompany police reforms because security begins at the grassroots. “The whole essence of advocating state policing is to establish effective community policing,” he said, warning that without empowered local governments capable of discharging their constitutional responsibilities, the creation of state police alone would achieve very little.

His position broadens the debate beyond policing itself to the wider issues of governance, grassroots administration and institutional capacity.

The Governor of Anambra State, Prof. Charles Soludo, approached the discussion from a broader constitutional perspective. For him, state policing cannot succeed without genuine fiscal federalism. While supporting decentralised policing, Soludo argued that devolving policing responsibilities to states without transferring corresponding financial resources would merely create another layer of ineffective governance. He described funding as “the big elephant” in the room.

According to him, Nigeria cannot expect states to maintain professional police organisations while the Federal Government retains the overwhelming share of national revenue. He argued that if states are expected to shoulder greater security responsibilities, they must equally receive greater fiscal capacity. Otherwise, some states might only be able to recruit a handful of police officers, thereby defeating the objective of decentralisation.

Soludo also suggested that Nigeria’s security reforms should not stop at state policing. Drawing lessons from the United States, he noted that county policing complements state policing and argued that Nigeria should eventually extend the conversation to local government policing as part of broader constitutional reforms.

Meanwhile, the practical contradiction within Nigeria’s current security architecture was highlighted by the Governor of Zamfara State, Dauda Lawal. He noted that although governors are designated as Chief Security Officers of their respective states, they exercise no operational authority over the police. Despite this limitation, he disclosed that his administration provides more than 95 per cent of the funding supporting security agencies operating in Zamfara State. According to him, his government has procured more than 500 operational vehicles and recently acquired 35 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to strengthen security operations. Yet, despite these investments, governors remain unable to direct security deployments.

Lawal also identified poor police welfare, inadequate training and insufficient funding as major obstacles to effective policing. “If we are to be fair to the police,” he said, “we must all acknowledge that they are inadequately funded, insufficiently trained, and poorly remunerated.”

His intervention reflects a growing concern among governors that they shoulder enormous financial and political responsibility for security without possessing the constitutional authority required to discharge that responsibility effectively.

Former Edo State Governor and Senator Adams Oshiomhole reinforced that argument by describing Nigeria’s present policing arrangement as constitutionally contradictory. “The Constitution calls the governor the Chief Security Officer, yet he cannot recruit, deploy, promote or discipline police officers,” he observed. “It is like calling someone a husband when he has no wife.”

Rejecting arguments that states cannot finance their own police formations, Oshiomhole insisted that government expenditure is always a reflection of political priorities. Drawing on his experience as governor, he recalled committing substantial state resources to police logistics despite having no operational control over the force.

On concerns that governors might abuse state police, Oshiomhole argued that democratic accountability remains the strongest safeguard. “If governors misuse state police, the electorate should vote them out,” he said.

He further criticised what he described as the absence of effective oversight mechanisms, arguing: “If you go around the country, you will find that the existing police barracks are in a state of disrepair. This is despite the budgetary allocations and releases made for the maintenance of these barracks over the past decade. You can fact-check this and ascertain the amount of money released for this purpose, yet there is little or nothing to show for it when you inspect these facilities. It is time we hold leaders accountable for the misuse of public resources.”

While broad support for state policing emerged from the discussions, participants equally agreed that safeguards must accompany any constitutional amendment.

The Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa, endorsed the establishment of state police but cautioned against allowing such institutions to become instruments of ethnic domination, religious bias or elite protection.

“State police should not be ethnic or religiously based, nor should they exist to protect the elite,” he warned. “They must guarantee justice and fairness.” Beyond institutional safeguards, Musa advocated stronger collaboration among security agencies, traditional rulers and community leaders.

According to him, local communities remain the most valuable source of intelligence in combating insurgency and terrorism. He urged traditional rulers to maintain accurate records of residents and promptly report suspicious movements, while stressing that military operations alone cannot defeat insecurity without good governance capable of earning public trust.

Taken together, the contributions at the ARISE Town Hall reflected an important evolution in Nigeria’s state policing debate. The conversation has moved beyond simply demanding decentralised policing to examining the institutional architecture required for it to succeed.

The participants identified several conditions as indispensable: constitutionally guaranteed funding insulated from political interference; strengthened local governments to support community policing; broader fiscal federalism that aligns responsibilities with resources; independent oversight institutions capable of preventing abuse; and legal safeguards to ensure professionalism, fairness and accountability.

Collectively, these proposals seek to avoid repeating the mistakes that contributed to the demise of regional policing while creating a modern security framework capable of responding to today’s complex security threats.

Whether these proposals ultimately find expression in constitutional amendments remains uncertain. However, one conclusion from the ARISE Town Hall appears increasingly difficult to dispute: establishing state police alone will not resolve Nigeria’s security challenges. Without comprehensive governance, fiscal and institutional reforms, decentralisation may simply relocate existing problems rather than solve them.