EXPLAINER: State Police: The powers, safeguards, controversies in approved Bill

For more than two decades, the agitation for state police has remained one of the most contentious issues in Nigeria’s political and constitutional discourse.

For many, it is the long-overdue solution to worsening insecurity in the land and a necessary step towards true federalism. However, many fear it could hand governors enormous powers that may be abused for political purposes.

On Thursday, 11 June, the debate moved a step closer to law.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish state police across the federation, marking one of the most significant security reform proposals currently before the National Assembly. The Senate also passed the bill on Wednesday.

| | | |---|

The bill is part of the ongoing Constitution alteration process aimed at restructuring Nigeria’s security architecture in response to rising insecurity across the country, including terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, armed robbery and other violent crimes.

In the House of Representatives, at the end of voting, 289 lawmakers supported the proposal while only one member voted against it, signalling rare bipartisan support for a reform that has historically divided politicians, security experts and civil society groups.

If there are differences between the versions passed by the Senate and the House, a committee would be established to harmonise them before the final bill is transmitted to the states, as required by the Constitution. At least 24 out of the 36 state Houses of Assembly must endorse it, and the president assents to it before it can become part of the Constitution.

The development raises several important questions:

What are the standout provisions in the State Police Bill?

While the proposed amendment contains numerous constitutional changes, several provisions stand out because of their potential impact on how security would be managed across the federation.

Two police systems – Perhaps the most far-reaching provision is the creation of a dual policing structure comprising the Federal Police and State Police.

This would end the current constitutional arrangement under which the Nigeria Police Force is the only recognised police organisation in the country.

However, states would not automatically begin policing activities. Before a state police service can commence operations, it must pass a law establishing the force and satisfy national standards prescribed by federal legislation.

Governors would appoint state police commissioners – Under the bill, each state police service would be headed by a commissioner of police appointed by the governor.

However, the appointment would not be entirely at the governor’s discretion. It would involve the National Police Council and require confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

This provision seeks to ensure that the appointment process contains checks and balances.

**Police commissioners can challenge governors’ directives – **One of the provisions is designed to address fears that governors may use state police for political purposes.

The bill allows a state commissioner of police to challenge directives considered unlawful or inconsistent with established policing standards.

Where such disputes arise, the matter would be referred to the National Police Council, whose decision would be final.

Abuja can still intervene in states – Contrary to suggestions that state police would operate entirely independently, the bill preserves a role for the federal police.

Federal intervention would be permitted where there is a complete breakdown of law and order, where a governor requests assistance, or where a state police service becomes incapable of functioning due to administrative, operational, or financial difficulties.

Even then, approval from the National Police Council would be required.

The federal government can fund state police – Funding remains one of the biggest concerns surrounding the proposal.

To address this, the bill empowers the federal government to provide grants and financial assistance to state police services, subject to recommendations by the National Police Council and approval by the National Assembly.

A powerful National Police Council would emerge – The bill proposes a significantly expanded National Police Council comprising representatives of federal and state governments, retired police officers, human rights institutions, labour unions, traditional rulers, lawyers and journalists.

The council would become the central coordinating body for policing nationwide.

Its powers would include appointments, discipline, standard-setting, oversight and coordination between federal and state police organisations.

Every state would establish a Police Service Commission – The proposal also requires every state to establish a State Police Service Commission.

The commission would be responsible for recruitment, discipline and personnel management within the state police service.

It would recommend senior officers for appointment while exercising direct authority over officers below the rank of assistant commissioner of police.

A country policed from Abuja

Nigeria currently operates a highly centralised policing structure.

Under the Constitution, the Nigeria Police Force is the only recognised police organisation in the country. From Lagos to Maiduguri, Port Harcourt to Sokoto, police personnel ultimately answer to a command structure headed by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) in Abuja.

While governors are described as chief security officers of their states, they exercise limited authority over police operations.

Over the years, many have argued that this arrangement has become increasingly difficult to sustain.

Nigeria’s population has grown rapidly, security threats have become more complex and criminal groups have become more sophisticated and mobile. Yet the country’s policing structure has largely remained centralised, policing over 200 million people spread across 36 states.

The result, according to proponents of state police, is a system that is often slow to respond to local security challenges and disconnected from the communities it is meant to protect.

The latest constitutional amendment seeks to change that.

The clause likely to generate the most debate

Although the bill contains several safeguards, the provision empowering governors to appoint state police commissioners is likely to remain one of its most controversial aspects.

Critics have long argued that state police could be weaponised against political opponents, particularly during elections.

Supporters, however, counter that the bill’s requirement for National Police Council involvement, legislative confirmation and independent oversight mechanisms provides enough checks to prevent abuse.

The bill’s drafters appear to have attempted to address that concern.

Under the proposal, each state police service would be headed by a commissioner of police appointed by the governor. However, the appointment would not be entirely at the governor’s discretion. The candidate must emerge from a process involving the National Police Council and be confirmed by the State House of Assembly.

More significantly, the bill provides a safeguard against potentially unlawful directives. If a commissioner believes a governor’s instruction violates policing standards or the law, the matter can be referred to the National Police Council for review. The council’s decision would be binding.

This provision could serve as an important check against political interference. Whether it would be effective in practice remains another matter.

Can states afford it?

Beyond politics, funding may prove to be the biggest obstacle to implementation.

Establishing and maintaining a police service is expensive.

Personnel salaries, recruitment, training, equipment, communication systems, forensic laboratories, intelligence infrastructure and operational logistics require enormous financial resources.

Many states already struggle to meet existing obligations, including paying the minimum wage to workers.

Critics, therefore, question whether some states possess the fiscal capacity to sustain effective police organisations.

The bill attempts to address this challenge by allowing the federal government to provide grants and financial assistance to state police services, subject to approval by the National Assembly.

Even so, questions remain about the long-term sustainability of the arrangement.

Would every state be able to maintain the same policing standards?

Could wealthy states develop more sophisticated police services while poorer states fall behind?

The bill does not provide definitive answers.

Why supporters believe the time has come

For advocates of state police, the argument is straightforward. Criminals often know local communities better than security agencies.

A police officer recruited from a community is more likely to understand local languages, cultural dynamics, geographical terrain and emerging threats than an officer posted from hundreds of kilometres away.

Supporters also argue that decentralised policing could improve intelligence gathering, shorten response times and increase accountability.

Many point to successful state-backed security initiatives such as Amotekun in the South-west and various regional security outfits across the country as evidence that localised security structures can complement national efforts.

To them, state police is not merely a security reform; it is an acknowledgement that Nigeria’s security realities have evolved beyond what a single centrally controlled police force can effectively manage.

Yet concerns remain.

Nigeria’s history contains numerous examples of security institutions being accused of partisanship during elections and political disputes.

Many fear that state police could become instruments for suppressing opposition voices, intimidating political rivals or influencing electoral outcomes.

Others worry about jurisdictional conflicts.

If a crime crosses state boundaries, which police organisation takes the lead?

What happens when federal and state authorities disagree?

How would intelligence sharing work?

These are questions that lawmakers may still need to address as the constitutional amendment process continues.

The state police proposal is ultimately about more than policing.

At its heart, it is a debate about federalism and how power should be distributed within Nigeria.

For decades, advocates of constitutional restructuring have argued that too much authority is concentrated at the centre.

The state police bill represents one of the clearest attempts yet to shift some of that authority closer to the states.

Whether Nigerians view that as necessary reform or a risky experiment will continue to shape the debate in the months ahead.

What is certain, however, is that with the vote in the House of Representatives and passage in the Senate, one of Nigeria’s longest-running constitutional debates has moved significantly closer to becoming reality.

Security expert speaks

A security analyst, Ben Okezie, said the overwhelming support the bill received in the National Assembly suggested that lawmakers were convinced adequate safeguards could be built into the system.

While commending the lawmakers for the step taken, Mr Okezie said state police could significantly improve Nigeria’s security response and create employment opportunities if properly implemented.

He dismissed concerns that the initiative could fail because of resistance from vested interests.

“Anything that is starting, some people will always want to create problems so they can give it a bad name and ensure it does not succeed. But state police all over the world have been a wonderful project that one should fully recommend for Nigeria,” Mr Okezie told PREMIUM TIMES.

According to him, a decentralised policing system would make it more difficult for criminals to move across state boundaries undetected.

He cited the recent killings in Oyo State as an example, arguing that a state police structure would have enabled neighbouring states to respond more quickly and apprehend suspects before they crossed into another jurisdiction.

Mr Okezie, who has long advocated state policing, said concerns that governors could hijack state police formations should not be enough to derail the proposal.

“That was one of the concerns raised over the years, but it can be handled through legislation. The commissioner of police in the state will know that he is responsible for security operations and not the governor. If there is interference, there are legislators and the media to raise the alarm,” he said.

Phased implementation

Mr Okezie, however, said he would have preferred a phased implementation approach in which a few states from different geopolitical zones would serve as pilot locations before nationwide adoption.

According to him, such an arrangement would allow policymakers to identify operational challenges, correct mistakes, and strengthen the framework before expanding it across the federation.

“I was thinking one or two states in the North, one or two in the West and one or two in the South could start first. As they progress, the loopholes and mistakes would be identified and corrected before other states join,” he said.

Beyond security, Mr Okezie argued that state police could provide jobs for thousands of young Nigerians.

He said the establishment of state police organisations would create opportunities not only for police officers but also for mechanics, media professionals, administrators, intelligence personnel and other support workers.

According to him, expanding employment opportunities could also help reduce the number of young people vulnerable to criminal activities.

On concerns about the financial burden on states, Mr Okezie argued that the challenge is often overstated.

He pointed to states’ existing security votes and other financial resources, insisting that the system could be developed gradually rather than all at once.

“The major costs will be arms, equipment and infrastructure, but states do not have to build everything immediately. They can start gradually and expand over time,” he said.

He also noted that police staffing requirements could be determined using established policing ratios and templates, allowing states to recruit personnel based on operational needs and available resources.