Still On State Police

The renewed wave of violent attacks across several parts of Nigeria has once again thrust the question of state police into the centre of national discourse. From insurgent assaults in the North-East to banditry in the North-West and recurring communal violence in the Middle Belt, the country’s security architecture is under intense strain. As these threats intensify, calls for the decentralisation of Nigeria’s policing system have grown louder.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recently described Nigeria as “extremely challenged” by terrorism, banditry, and insurgency. Many governors, under the umbrella of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum, have also intensified calls for local policing, which they argue would enable quicker and more effective responses to security threats.

Security experts and civil society groups similarly contend that the country’s highly centralised policing structure is no longer adequate for Nigeria’s complex security realities.

The Institute for Economics and Peace’s World Internal Security and Police Index 2023 placed Nigeria among the five worst-performing countries globally in terms of its ability to provide internal security. Nigeria operates one of the most centralised policing systems in the world. The Nigeria Police Force remains under the exclusive control of the federal government, with operational authority largely coordinated from Abuja.

In principle, this arrangement was designed to preserve national cohesion and prevent the misuse of security institutions by subnational authorities. In practice, however, the limitations of such centralisation have become increasingly apparent.

A country of over 200 million people, spread across 36 states and 774 local government areas, faces security challenges that vary significantly from one region to another. Insurgency in the North-East presents a different set of operational demands compared with banditry in the North-West, farmer–herder conflicts in the Middle Belt, separatist tensions in the South-East, or organised criminal networks in major urban centres. Yet a single federal police command structure is expected to manage all these diverse threats.

The consequences of this arrangement include the emergence of ungoverned spaces across all geopolitical zones, states, local governments, and many communities. It has also contributed to delayed responses to emergencies, weak local intelligence networks, and overstretched personnel.

In many communities affected by violence, residents frequently complain that security forces arrive long after attacks have already taken place. Such experiences have inevitably fuelled the argument that policing in Nigeria must be closer to the people it is meant to protect.

Advocates of state police argue that decentralised policing would allow state governments to deploy security resources more swiftly and effectively. Officers recruited locally are more likely to understand the languages, terrain, and social dynamics of their communities. This proximity can improve intelligence gathering and strengthen cooperation between law enforcement agencies and residents. In security operations, information from local communities is often the most critical factor in preventing attacks.

There is also the practical reality that governors are widely regarded as the “chief security officers” of their states, yet they have little direct control over the police forces operating within their jurisdictions. This contradiction has frequently left state governments with limited authority to respond quickly to emerging threats.

However, while the arguments in favour of state police are compelling, the proposal also raises serious concerns that cannot be ignored. Critics fear that granting governors control over police forces could open the door to political abuse.

Nigeria’s democratic history offers several examples in which those in power have been tempted to use security institutions to intimidate political opponents or suppress dissent. In many states, political loyalty often determines access to power, influence, and economic opportunity. In such circumstances, control of armed security institutions becomes enormously consequential.

The fear that state police could become instruments of political coercion is, therefore, not unfounded. In a political environment where institutions remain relatively fragile, such risks deserve careful consideration. Without strong constitutional safeguards, decentralised policing could introduce new forms of abuse even as it seeks to solve existing security problems.

This dilemma is precisely why the debate over state police must move beyond simple slogans for or against the idea. What Nigeria needs is not merely the creation of state police, but the careful design of a policing system that balances local autonomy with national accountability.

Establishing state police without addressing the country’s weak accountability structures, fragile governance culture, and inconsistent political will may simply multiply the problem rather than solve it.

Several safeguards should, therefore, form part of any serious reform effort.

First, the powers and operational boundaries of state police must be clearly defined in the constitution to prevent arbitrary interference by state authorities. Independent oversight bodies, including representation from the judiciary and civil society, could help monitor the activities of such forces and ensure compliance with the rule of law.

Second, recruitment, training, and operational standards should remain subject to nationally agreed guidelines to ensure professionalism across all states. This would prevent the emergence of poorly trained or politically motivated security outfits that could undermine public trust.

Third, the federal government should retain authority over certain strategic aspects of national security, particularly in areas involving terrorism, cross-border crimes, and other threats that transcend state boundaries. In this way, state police would function as part of a layered security system rather than a fragmented one.

Ultimately, the state police debate reflects a broader challenge confronting Nigeria’s federal structure. As the country grows in size and complexity, institutions designed decades ago must adapt to present-day realities. Persisting with a system that no longer meets the demands of public safety carries its own dangers, including the erosion of public confidence in the state’s ability to protect its citizens.