State Police: The Way Forward, by Tonnie Iredia

At last, members of Nigeria’s House of Representatives have passed the bill for state police in the country. The proposed new policing system, which is aimed at addressing rising insecurity across the country, saw 289 out of the 290 members in attendance vote in favour of state police while only one member abstained. Because no reason was given for the absence of about 69 other members, we cannot assume that they would have also voted in favour of the bill. We can only hope that they were not absent because they wanted to avoid being exposed as among those opposed to the idea of allowing state police to stop the current nation’s insecurity. Perhaps that is why some members of the ruling party are reluctant to support the policy, otherwise why are they toying with a project President Bola Tinubu seems to wholly support?

The state police policy is not just one of the policies that Tinubu supports; he has had cause to show severally that the policy is close to his heart. At the 14th meeting of the All-Progressives Congress National Caucus held at the Conference Centre, State House, Abuja in December 2025, the President urged state governors and members of his party caucus to support the proposal for the establishment of state police and full implementation of local government autonomy. He recalled his earlier extensive discussions with officials from the United States and Europe, during which he expressed confidence that the passage of state police would be achieved to strengthen national security.

Some two months later, President Tinubu at a lecture titled “Leading Nigeria Forward: Strategies for Security and National Cohesion,” in Umuahia called on the National Assembly to review relevant laws to enable states to establish sub‑national policing where necessary. The goal, according to the President, was “to restate our commitment to the decentralisation of the nation’s policing system by bringing back sub‑national policing as was obtainable in the First Republic.” These statements clearly confirm that President Tinubu wants state police. If so, why are the legislators reluctant? Interestingly, the senate, which is known for approving any idea which they suspect the President is thinking about, has put the state police issue on a sleep‑walking mode.

Could it be that they are among Nigerians who are willing to support whatever can stop the nation’s bizarre insecurity, yet are opposed to the idea of a state police? While the reluctance of the legislature may not be easy to see, we are aware that many citizens have their fears tied around the possibility of state governors abusing the policy. We certainly cannot dismiss the fear because history has shown over and over that our governors have long become notorious for victimising their political opponents. As a result, it is not impossible that those in government might unnecessarily use state police to imprison critics and anyone outside their own political parties. But whereas the fear is real, it is nevertheless insufficient for opposing a structure that should ordinarily be part of a federal system of government.

The way therefore is to approve the state police and ensure that its enabling law is well articulated to make it hard for it to become a tool for oppression in the hands of those in government. For example, general statements such as that officials of the state police shall not have been involved in partisan politics may not be enough because we have seen what our governors turned state independent electoral commissions into. Indeed, even the federal referee INEC has so many politicians in its fold notwithstanding that such is patently disallowed by the law. There is therefore the need to properly determine the composition and control of the forthcoming state police.

Also to be well determined are the functions of the state police. We are supporting the idea now because we are anxious to use them to bring down the high degree of insecurity in the country. After that what next? There are many examples of how we support policies on account of immediate challenges which in future become problematic because no one thought of what becomes of the policy in future when the rationale for its existence changes. For example, when the military was departing the political scene in 1979, everyone supported the idea of structures that would make us united as a nation. As a result, the military federalised everything in the country. Even television stations were suddenly merged to form NTA believing its programmes would forge national unity.

Of course, it didn’t work because successive governments later refused to let the NTA serve everyone. Apart from not allowing a level playing field in the coverage of events, even the right of reply was usually not granted to opposition parties that had been indicted by official statements. What this suggests is that the exact purpose of the state police ought to be clearly stated with power given to anyone to challenge their transgressions. Accordingly, state police should not be given the opportunity to have officials who would prioritise bogus assignments such as the inspection of vehicle particulars on our streets. Except such functions are clearly defined and the involvement of the state police is outlined and controlled; no one should be surprised to find them guarding election materials and usurping the role of the electoral body.

What should be key from day one is training and retraining because we must not make the mistake of hurriedly appointing and deploying personnel who would be unable to demonstrate any professional competence in the performance of their duties. Under no circumstance should state and federal police fight for control of territory. Bearing in mind that both agencies have the same goal, synergy which must be the watch word can only be attained through collaboration and cooperation. The federal police in this case have so much to offer and must be allowed to provide professional guidelines for the police. Those who think the federal police should not contaminate their state police would have a wrong footing because what we imagine is wrong with our police is not necessarily the problem.

If there is corruption in the Nigeria Police it is greatly influenced by the Nigerian society. Stories abound of how our police are rated highly when deployed to foreign assignments while they face lamentations at home. The state police will also be problematic if it is introduced into working for long and odd hours with inadequate pay. Where that happens, the affected officials will begin to look out for how to fend for themselves so that in future they won’t sleep around the office waiting for salaries, pensions and gratuities. Also problematic is poor working tools and inadequate materials. We know of police formations to which vehicles are supplied without funds for fuel. How do such formations source the funds to meet those necessities?

Today, we wholeheartedly support state police to help bring down our nation’s insecurity. Tomorrow, we shall not be able to defend the state police that would be guarding the elite and their families. At that point, future generations would be unable to appreciate how a poor Nigerian nation decided to have a dual policing system that it can hardly afford to pay for. We did it before, by having a bicameral federal legislature, today it is obvious that we cannot really afford it but because it is occupied by politicians the nation’s resources are depleted keeping it. Let’s thoroughly examine the forthcoming state police. What do we need it for today and for how long will be viable?

The post State Police: The way forward, by Tonnie Iredia appeared first on Vanguard News.