Beyond The Policing Abracadabra -By Abiodun KOMOLAFE

“One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas. No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.”

– Victor Hugo, Histoire d’un Crime, 1852.

Victor Hugo, the French philosopher, is absolutely right: the devolution of policing powers to subnational and local governments is long overdue. This is not a radical departure; it was the reality during the colonial era and the First Republic.

It is worth noting that the Office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) did not even exist until 1964, when Louis Edet became Nigeria’s first indigenous head of the Force. It is, therefore, not surprising that the British avoided creating a centralized IGP during the long stretch following 1829, when Sir Robert Peel established the world’s first modern policing system in London. Even under our former colonial masters, policing has remained fundamentally devolved.

The British could not have invented the Inspector General for themselves, simply because no such office exists in their own country. Instead, Britain relies on 43 independent territorial forces with largely positive results. This devolved model brings a new kind of democracy to the streets, where the police answer to local boards directly on the hook to the voters – putting community needs ahead of party politics. Under this framework, any qualified citizen, from a dentist to an engineer, can oversee the police force. This local accountability remains the hallmark of their domestic security architecture.

Nigeria itself once operated a devolved policing system, with the ‘Akodas’ in the Western Region and the Native Authority Police in the North. The absurdity of military-imposed centralization destroyed this legacy, with disastrous effects that continue to haunt us. Given the current insurgency across the nation, it should be glaringly clear that we cannot secure a territory so vast, multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious from a single, centralized base. Quite simply, it is not working!

Those members of the political establishment who were educated in the United States are well aware that even university campuses maintain their own highly efficient policing systems. The US utilizes a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to tackle federal crimes and cross-border offenses, but there is no such office as an ‘Inspector General of Police.’ Such a role would be a contradiction in terms for a federation – and a proud one at that!

We must look to the American model to debunk the self-serving proposition that the devolution of policing powers leads inevitably to tyranny by state governors. Common sense dictates that a person can drown while taking a bath, but that is no argument against the necessity of hygiene. Naturally, state policing will require robust oversight, just as there are currently legal avenues and constitutional protections to check the excesses of the Federal Police. In a democracy, no form of policing can exist without checks and balances. To suggest otherwise is to abandon the democratic ideal itself.

We cannot ignore the history of executive overreach and the weaponisation of the police over the last fifty years. They’re excesses that have persisted even under civilian regimes. Even in the United Kingdom, civil society organizations frequently file suits to hold the police accountable. Under a devolved system, the state police must be subjected to the same rigorous statutory rules as the federal police. It must ensure that the scrutiny of civil society remains the ultimate safeguard of our liberties.

The best-known and most cited example of federal intervention in a devolved system comes from the United States. On September 4, 1957, the segregationist governor of Arkansas – the home state of former President Bill Clinton – Orval Faubus, stood before Little Rock Central High School and used the state’s National Guard to defy the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on school desegregation. The resulting drama was life-threatening. It was a volatile confrontation that teetered on the brink of widespread violence.

Observing the crisis from the White House, President Dwight D. Eisenhower acted decisively! On September 24, 1957, he issued an executive order to wrest control of the Arkansas National Guard from the governor’s hands and, in the American patois, ‘federalised’ the force to ensure the supremacy of constitutional law. This remains the definitive historical rebuttal to the self-serving claim that state policing in a federation inevitably leads to unchecked gubernatorial tyranny. The centre always retains the ultimate authority to step in when the foundational rights of citizens are at stake.

Temporarily, Governor Faubus was no longer the Chief Security Officer of Arkansas. President Eisenhower did the right thing! His intervention demonstrated that even in an advanced federal democracy like the US, if a governor’s actions – or inactions – become a direct threat to internal security and national cohesion, the federal authorities must assert their constitutional prerogative to minimize conflicts that might otherwise threaten the life of the state.

In the Nigerian context, just as the president must approach the National Assembly to proclaim a State of Emergency in any part of the federation, he should be required to obtain legislative consent before taking over a state police force. Without such a safeguard, the process remains vulnerable to partisan abuse. To put it succinctly, the success of such a framework depends on the maturity and institutional development of our political establishment.

Once upon a time in Nigeria, the Defence Industries Corporation (DIC) wasn’t just a government agency, it was a statement of intent. In those days, the DIC was so woven into the fabric of our national pride that even its football club, DIC FC, was a terror on the pitch. It was a period when our institutions had “soul” and a clear sense of mission. But today, as we watch our security bills skyrocket while our borders remain porous, one is forced to ask the bitter question: where did those good old days go? How did we move from being a nation that built things to one that merely bails out of trouble?

With the current security climate, state policing has shifted from a mere suggestion to an absolute, now-or-never inevitability. We are past the point of debate; this is the reality on the ground. Our focus must now move to the actual architecture of these services – perhaps looking at regionally devolved models like the Amotekun framework. This requires more than just new uniforms; it demands specialized, ongoing training for personnel and a serious integration of modern technology. Stripped of the politics and allied abracadabra, the real win for state policing is simple: it puts intelligence gathering back where it belongs – in the community.

Globally, effective intelligence begins at the grassroots. It was the hallmark of the First Republic, an era of localized, community-based security that produced legendary figures like Inspector Patrick Fynecountry. His crime-busting exploits were so storied and his name so synonymous with justice that his life’s work remains the perfect script for a Nollywood blockbuster. It would, without question, be a record-breaking success.

The core issue today, as we are all painfully aware, is that insurgents are exploiting the vacuum created by a weak intelligence network at the grassroots and community levels. To counter this, we must return to a modernized, updated version of the ‘Inspector Fynecountry’ model of localized vigilance.

The flawed logic behind the military-imposed, centralized policing structure has been exposed as pathetically inadequate for a 21st-century federation. The hour has struck to return to a devolved system and, crucially, to transition our mindset and our moniker from the ‘Nigeria Police Force’ to a true ‘Nigeria Police Service’.

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

Email: ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk.

Mobile: 08033614419 SMS only.