State Police In Nigeria: Necessary Security Reform Or A Risky Federal Experiment? -By Jacob Shekwobashawye Samuel

0.1 Introduction

By virtue of the Constitution, Security remains the primary responsibility of every government and the foundation upon which political stability, economic development, social order, and national progress depend. No society can achieve sustainable growth where lives and property are constantly threatened by insecurity. In recent years, however, Nigeria has experienced an unprecedented rise in various forms of criminality and violent conflicts, including terrorism, insurgency, banditry, kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery, communal clashes, farmer-herder conflicts, cultism, cybercrime, and other organized criminal activities.

Despite the efforts of the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies, insecurity continues to pose serious challenges to national development. Several communities across the country remain vulnerable to attacks, while public confidence in existing security institutions has gradually declined. The inability of the centralized policing structure to effectively address local security challenges has generated renewed calls for the decentralization of policing powers and the establishment of state police.

0.2 Meaning of The Police and Policing?

SABASTINE ANYIA in his paper titled: The Nigerian Police and the Challenges of Policing at Subnational Level: Is State Police a Viable Option? Defined the police as an authorized public officer who is responsible for maintaining law and order, preventing crimes, investigating crimes, protecting life and property, and enforcing the laws of a community or nation while policing is the system of activities undertaken to uphold public safety and security, enforce laws, prevent crimes, investigate crime, and support the orderly functioning of society.

0.3 Understanding State Police

According to Wikipedia, State police are a type of sub-national territorial police force found in nations organized as federations, and fortunately, Nigeria is one. These forces typically have jurisdiction over the relevant sub-national jurisdiction, and may cooperate in law enforcement activities with municipal or national police where either exist.

To this Writer, State police refers to a policing system in which individual states establish, fund, and administer their own police organizations to maintain law and order within their territorial boundaries. Such police agencies would primarily enforce state laws and address local crimes while the federal police retain responsibility for national and federal offences.

Nigeria currently operates a highly centralized police system under Section 214 of the Constitution, which establishes only one police force for the federation, namely the Nigeria Police Force.

Functions and Duties of the Police Force 

The Police Act provides that the Police Force shall:

Section 4: (a) prevent and detect crimes, and protect the rights and freedom of every person in Nigeria as provided in the Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and any other law;

(b) maintain public safety, law and order;

(c) protect the lives and property of all persons in Nigeria;

(d) enforce all laws and regulations without any prejudice to the enabling Acts of other security agencies;

(e) discharge such duties within and outside Nigeria as may be required of it under this Act or any other law;

(f) collaborate with other agencies to take any necessary action and provide the required assistance or support to persons in distress, including victims of road accidents, fire disasters, earthquakes and floods;

(g) facilitate the free passage and movement on highways, roads and streets open to the public; and

(h) adopt community partnership in the discharge of its responsibilities under this Act or under any other law; and

(i) vet and approve the registration of private detective schools and private investigative outfits.

Section 5(1) The Police Force is responsible for promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of persons in police custody as guaranteed by the Constitution.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Police Force shall collaborate with and maintain close working relationships with any government agency or relevant private initiatives in the establishment of schemes or mechanisms offering legal services to accused persons, detainees or accused persons in police custody in need of legal services to ensure that they have full access to justice as laid down under the relevant provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution.

(3) In addition to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), the Police Force is also charged with the responsibility for promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of all persons as guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and other international legal instruments on human rights to which Nigeria is a signatory.

0.4  The Changing Security Realities in Nigeria: Why Decentralized and State Policing Have Become Imperative

The historical analysis undertaken by Amobi P. Chiamogu and Uchechukwu P. Chiamogu in their Paper titled: ‘Decentralizing the Nigerian Police Force: A Plausible Approach to Hinterland Securities demonstrates that decentralized policing is not a novel concept within Nigeria’s constitutional and administrative history. Prior to the military intervention of 1966, Nigeria operated various forms of regional, local government, and native authority police systems that reflected the country’s federal structure and accommodated regional peculiarities.

The centralized policing system currently in operation is therefore not necessarily a product of Nigeria’s federal evolution but largely a consequence of military unification policies that sought to concentrate administrative and security powers at the centre. The subsequent constitutional entrenchment of a single Nigeria Police Force under section 214 of the 1999 Constitution merely consolidated this military legacy.

However, the security realities that informed the establishment of a centralized police system in 1966 are remarkably different from those confronting contemporary Nigeria.

1. Population Explosion and Territorial Complexity: At independence, Nigeria’s population was estimated at approximately 45 million people. Today, the country is home to over 200 million citizens spread across 36 states, the Federal Capital Territory, 774 local government areas, and thousands of communities. The enormous increase in population has naturally produced greater demands for security services. Criminal activities have equally become more sophisticated, organized, and geographically widespread. A policing structure originally designed for a far smaller population may no longer adequately address the security demands of modern Nigeria.
2. Emergence of New Security Threats: Nigeria presently faces multiple and complex security challenges that were either nonexistent or relatively insignificant during the periods preceding police centralization. These include: Terrorism and insurgency, Banditry, Kidnapping for ransom, Farmer-herder conflicts, Communal violence., Separatist agitations, Cultism, Cybercrime, Human trafficking, Illegal mining, Transnational organized crime. These threats often possess strong local dimensions and require immediate intelligence gathering and rapid operational responses.
3. The Limitations of a Centrally Controlled Police System: The present policing structure places operational authority largely within the command hierarchy headed by the Inspector-General of Police in Abuja. While governors are constitutionally designated as Chief Security Officers of their respective states, they exercise limited operational control over policing activities. Consequently: Security decisions may be delayed, Local intelligence may not be effectively utilized, Response times may be prolonged, Community trust may be weakened, Officers unfamiliar with local languages and customs may struggle to gather intelligence. A highly centralized structure often finds it difficult to respond effectively to localized security challenges.
4. The Failure of One-Size-Fits-All Policing: The security challenges confronting Borno State differ significantly from those of Lagos State. The realities of Zamfara differ from those of Rivers State, while the concerns of Plateau State may differ substantially from those of Anambra State. A uniform policing strategy directed from Abuja may not adequately address these diverse realities. Decentralized policing permits states to develop security responses tailored to their peculiar circumstances, geography, culture, and crime patterns.
5. Local Knowledge and Community Intelligence: One of the strongest arguments in favour of state police lies in local knowledge. Officers recruited from local communities often possess: Familiarity with local languages, Knowledge of community leaders, Understanding of cultural practices, Awareness of geographical terrain, Existing intelligence networks. Criminals frequently exploit local knowledge to evade law enforcement. State police can potentially reduce this disadvantage by employing officers who understand the communities they serve.
6. Strengthening Federalism: Nigeria operates a federal system of government. Yet, policing remains one of the most centralized governmental functions. The principle of federalism generally supports the devolution of powers and responsibilities to subnational units where appropriate. The restoration of state policing may therefore represent not merely a security reform but also an important step toward strengthening Nigeria’s federal structure.
7. Existing Informal Decentralization: Despite constitutional centralization, various states and regions have already developed local security initiatives to fill existing security gaps. Community security networks, vigilante groups, and regional security outfits have emerged across the country largely because the present centralized system has struggled to meet local security needs. The proposed state police framework seeks to formalize, regulate, and professionalize these localized security efforts within a constitutional framework.
8. The Present Reality Demands Reform: The Nigeria of 1966 is fundamentally different from the Nigeria of today. The country now faces: A larger population, More complex criminal networks, Greater territorial challenges, Rapid urbanization, Technological crimes, Increased insecurity, Greater demands for local participation in governance. The centralized policing model that emerged from military unification may no longer sufficiently address these contemporary realities. Consequently, the argument for decentralized policing is not merely historical or political. It is increasingly becoming a practical response to Nigeria’s evolving security environment.

0.5 The challenges of Centralized Policing

Ogbodo Stephen O, in his Paper titled: ‘The Nigeria Police Force and Challenges of Crime Management: An Appraisal of Agitation for State Control Police’ has exposed several weaknesses of the Centralized Police system of Nigeria.

1. Inadequate Personnel: Nigeria has a police-to-population ratio far below international recommendations. Millions of citizens live in communities with little or no police presence. Many police divisions are severely understaffed.
2. Command chain effect and slow Response to Local Crimes: Security decisions often pass through lengthy bureaucratic chains of command. Commissioners of Police report to the Inspector-General of Police in Abuja, reducing operational flexibility at the state level.
3. Limited Local Knowledge: Officers are frequently posted to states where they neither understand the language nor appreciate local customs, traditions, and social dynamics. This often weakens intelligence gathering and community trust.
4. Rising Insecurity: The persistence of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and violent crimes demonstrates that the present structure has not sufficiently addressed Nigeria’s security challenges.

0.6 The Importance of State Police

The Constitution has empowered the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof. Hence, the enactment of the State Police Act. Therefore, giving the context, it is reasonable to highlight the importance of this new legislation.

1. Improved Local Security: State police officers are likely to possess better knowledge of local communities, languages, culture, terrain, and social relationships. This familiarity enhances intelligence gathering and crime detection. A police officer who understands the local environment can identify threats faster than an outsider.
2. Faster Response to Emergencies: State-controlled police agencies can respond more rapidly to emergencies, violent crimes, and security threats without awaiting directives from federal authorities. Quick responses often prevent minor incidents from escalating into major crises.
3. Strengthening Community Policing: State police would encourage closer interaction between law enforcement and local communities. Citizens are generally more willing to cooperate with officers who understand their language and cultural background. Effective policing depends largely on public trust.
4. Decongesting the Nigeria Police Force: The Nigeria Police Force currently bears enormous responsibilities ranging from traffic control to terrorism investigations. State police would allow federal police to focus on: Terrorism, Organized crime, Cybercrime, Interstate crimes, Border security, Protection of federal institutions, Intelligence coordination. This division of responsibilities can improve efficiency.

5. Promotion of True Federalism: Nigeria operates a federal system of government. However, policing remains highly centralized. True federalism requires the devolution of certain powers to subnational governments. Since governors are constitutionally designated as chief security officers of their states, many argue that they should possess some control over internal security.
6. Better Intelligence Gathering: Security is largely intelligence-driven. Local officers who reside within their communities can obtain information more easily regarding: Criminal activities, Cult groups, Kidnapping gangs, Bandit movements, Terrorist infiltration, Communal tensions. Such intelligence may prevent crimes before they occur.
7. Economic Development: Investors seek safe environments before committing capital. Improved security encourages: Business activities, Tourism, Agricultural production, Industrial development, Foreign investment. Communities experiencing constant insecurity often suffer economic decline.
8. Reduction of Vigilantism: Many states have already established informal security outfits because of gaps in policing. Examples include regional and community security groups operating in various parts of the country. Establishing state police would bring such security arrangements under legal regulation, proper training, accountability, and professional standards.

0.7 Addressing the Fears and Concerns Surrounding State Police

Despite the growing support for the establishment of state police in Nigeria, critics have continued to express legitimate concerns regarding its potential implications. These concerns, while important, are not insurmountable. Rather than serving as reasons to reject state police entirely, they present opportunities for lawmakers to design a policing framework that is both effective and accountable.

In her June 12 Report titled: State Police Bill: A clause-by-clause breakdown and what it means for Nigeria, Gift Chapi-Odekina gave a detailed explanation to the proposed law.

1. Political Abuse and Executive Interference: Perhaps the most frequently raised concern is the possibility that state governors may deploy state police as instruments of political oppression, particularly against political opponents, critics, or opposition parties. This concern is understandable given Nigeria’s political history. However, the risk of abuse can be substantially reduced through the establishment of robust institutional safeguards, including:

• Independent State Police Service Commissions.
• Judicial oversight and review of police actions.
• Legislative supervision by State Houses of Assembly.
• Fixed tenure for police leadership.
• Constitutional guarantees of operational independence.
• Civilian complaint and accountability mechanisms.

With these safeguards in place, state police can operate professionally while remaining insulated from undue political influence.

2. Funding Challenges: Another major criticism concerns the financial capacity of states to establish and maintain police services. Many states currently face difficulties in meeting existing financial obligations, including salary payments and infrastructural development. However, financial limitations should not necessarily invalidate the concept of state policing. Several practical solutions may be adopted, including:

• Gradual and phased implementation.
• Federal grants and financial assistance.
• Security trust funds.
• State security levies or taxes where appropriate.
• Regional cooperation among neighbouring states.
• Furthermore, states may adopt policing structures that reflect their respective economic realities and security needs.

3. Human Rights Violations: Concerns have also been raised regarding the possibility of human rights abuses by state police personnel. While such fears deserve serious consideration, it is important to recognise that abuses of power are not peculiar to state police alone. Human rights violations can occur under any policing system, whether federal or state-controlled. The appropriate response therefore lies in strengthening accountability mechanisms through:

• Strong and independent oversight institutions.
• Continuous professional and human rights training.
• Effective disciplinary procedures.
• Independent complaint and review bodies.
• Judicial remedies for victims of abuse.

A properly regulated state police system can operate within the framework of the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights.

4. Duplication of Functions and Jurisdictional Conflicts: Another concern frequently expressed by critics is the possibility of overlapping responsibilities between state police and existing security agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force, NDLEA, NAPTIP, NSCDC, and other law enforcement bodies.

However, overlapping jurisdictions are not unique to state police. Similar arrangements exist even under the current security architecture. The real challenge is not duplication itself, but the absence of clearly defined responsibilities and effective inter-agency coordination. This concern can be addressed through:

• Clear constitutional and statutory delineation of powers.
• Defined areas of jurisdiction.
• Coordinated intelligence-sharing mechanisms.
• Inter-agency cooperation frameworks.
• Oversight by a strengthened National Police Council.

With proper legal and administrative coordination, state police can complement rather than compete with existing security agencies.

Ultimately, these concerns should not be viewed as reasons to reject state police outright. Instead, they should serve as guiding considerations in designing a policing system that promotes accountability, professionalism, efficiency, and respect for the rule of law

0.8 Standout Provisions in the State Police Bill

It is undeniable that the concerns raised by critics of state police deserve serious consideration. Issues relating to political interference, funding, human rights protection, operational accountability, and possible abuse of power are legitimate concerns that cannot be ignored. However, a careful examination of the proposed State Police Bill reveals that many of these concerns have already been anticipated and addressed through various institutional and constitutional safeguards.

In her June 26, 2026 Report titled “EXPLAINER: State Police: The powers, safeguards, controversies in approved Bill,” Sharon Eboesomi carefully examined the provisions of the proposed constitutional amendment and highlighted several mechanisms designed to prevent abuse, ensure accountability, and maintain effective coordination between federal and state policing structures.

1. Checks and Balances in the Appointment of State Police Commissioners: One of the major concerns raised by critics is the possibility that governors may use state police as political instruments. While the Bill provides that each State Police Service shall be headed by a Commissioner of Police appointed by the Governor, such appointment is not left entirely to the Governor’s discretion.

According to Eboesomi, the appointment process involves the National Police Council and requires confirmation by the State House of Assembly. This multi-layered process introduces important checks and balances capable of reducing the likelihood of political manipulation.

Furthermore, the Bill empowers a State Commissioner of Police to challenge any directive issued by a governor that is considered unlawful or inconsistent with established policing standards. In such circumstances, the matter is to be referred to the National Police Council, whose decision shall be final and binding. This provision represents an important safeguard against executive interference and political abuse.

2. Preservation of Federal Oversight and Intervention: Contrary to suggestions that state police would operate entirely independently, the proposed legislation preserves a significant role for the Federal Police and the Federal Government.

The Bill permits federal intervention 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 operational, administrative, or financial difficulties.

Importantly, such intervention is not automatic. Approval from the National Police Council is required, thereby ensuring that federal intervention remains regulated and does not undermine the autonomy of the states.

3. Financial Support and Funding Mechanisms: Funding has remained one of the strongest criticisms against the establishment of state police. Many states currently struggle to meet existing financial obligations, including the payment of workers’ salaries and implementation of the minimum wage.

Recognising this challenge, 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.

This provision seeks to reduce the financial burden on states and promote more equitable policing standards across the federation. Although concerns regarding long-term sustainability may still exist, the proposed framework demonstrates that the drafters have considered the issue of funding.

4. An Expanded National Police Council as a Safeguard Against Abuse: Another significant safeguard contained in the Bill is the proposed expansion of the National Police Council. The Council is expected to comprise representatives of the Federal Government, State Governments, retired police officers, human rights institutions, labour unions, traditional rulers, lawyers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

The Bill envisions the Council as the central coordinating body for policing nationwide. Its responsibilities would include appointments, discipline, standard-setting, oversight, coordination, and policy formulation for both federal and state police organisations.

The broad composition of the Council is intended to prevent the concentration of policing powers in the hands of a few political actors and to ensure transparency, accountability, and institutional oversight.

5. Establishment of State Police Service Commissions: The Bill further requires every state to establish a State Police Service Commission. These commissions would be responsible for recruitment, discipline, promotions, and personnel management within the State Police Service.

They would recommend senior officers for appointment while exercising direct authority over officers below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. This institutional arrangement helps to separate operational policing from political influence and provides an additional layer of accountability.

6. The Introduction of a Dual Policing Structure: Perhaps the most far-reaching provision of the Bill is the establishment of a dual policing system consisting of the Federal Police and the State Police.

This would effectively end the present constitutional arrangement under which the Nigeria Police Force remains the only constitutionally recognised police organisation in the country.

However, the Bill does not automatically create state police services upon its enactment. Each state must first enact its own legislation establishing a State Police Service and satisfy national standards prescribed by federal legislation before commencing operations.

This approach ensures that states meet minimum operational, administrative, and professional requirements before establishing their respective police services.

0.9 Recommendations

No system on earth is perfect, and the proposed state police framework cannot be expected to be entirely free from challenges. However, rather than rejecting the idea of state police because of its potential shortcomings, greater attention should be devoted to designing effective institutional safeguards capable of minimizing the risks and ensuring accountability.

The focus should therefore shift from asking whether state police is flawless to determining how it can be structured to serve the interests of security, justice, and democratic governance. To guarantee the effectiveness and sustainability of state police in Nigeria, the following measures are essential:

1. Constitutional safeguards against political interference and abuse.
2. Independent State Police Service Commissions.
3. Merit-based recruitment and promotion processes.
4. Continuous professional and human rights training.
5. Clear constitutional and statutory division of responsibilities between federal and state police.
6. Strong judicial oversight and review mechanisms.
7. Robust protection of fundamental human rights.
8. Transparent and sustainable funding arrangements.
9. Effective federal-state coordination structures.
10. Strong disciplinary and accountability systems.

The success of state police will depend not merely on its establishment, but on the strength of the institutions, safeguards, and oversight mechanisms put in place to regulate its operations. With proper legal frameworks and effective accountability measures, state police can become an important instrument for improving security, strengthening federalism, and bringing policing closer to the people.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the establishment of state police in Nigeria represents one of the most significant constitutional and security discussions in the country’s democratic history. On one hand, critics have expressed legitimate concerns regarding political abuse, funding challenges, human rights violations, jurisdictional conflicts, and the possibility of executive interference. On the other hand, proponents argue that the growing complexity of Nigeria’s security challenges, the limitations of the present centralized policing structure, and the demands of true federalism make policing decentralization both necessary and inevitable.

This paper has demonstrated that the present centralized policing arrangement, which largely emerged from military unification policies, is increasingly struggling to respond effectively to Nigeria’s contemporary security realities. Rising insecurity, inadequate manpower, poor intelligence gathering, delayed operational responses, and limited local participation have exposed the limitations of a one-size-fits-all policing system.

The proposed State Police Bill appears to recognize many of the concerns raised by critics by introducing several institutional safeguards, including the involvement of the National Police Council in appointments, independent State Police Service Commissions, legislative oversight, federal intervention mechanisms, and accountability structures. While these safeguards may not completely eliminate the risk of abuse, they provide important mechanisms for preventing arbitrary exercise of police powers.

Ultimately, the question is not whether state police is entirely free from risks, because no policing system anywhere in the world is completely immune from abuse, political interference, or operational challenges. Rather, the real question is whether Nigeria can continue to rely exclusively on a highly centralized policing system in the face of evolving security threats and growing demands for local participation in governance.

The evidence examined in this paper suggests that state police is less a risky federal experiment than a necessary security reform, provided that it is carefully designed, properly regulated, adequately funded, and subjected to strong constitutional and institutional safeguards. Effective policing is fundamentally local, and security challenges often require local solutions.

Accordingly, the establishment of state police should not be viewed as a threat to national unity, but rather as an opportunity to strengthen security, deepen federalism, improve accountability, and bring policing closer to the people. If properly implemented, state police may ultimately become one of the most important constitutional and security reforms in Nigeria’s democratic development.

As Nigeria confronts increasingly complex security challenges, the pursuit of an effective, accountable, and decentralized policing system may no longer be a matter of political preference, but a practical necessity for national security and sustainable development.

About the Author:

Jacob Shekwobashawye Samuel is a Law Student and a Senator of the 9th (Senate) Legislative Assembly of the Law Students’ Association of Nigeria (LAWSAN). 

He is a passionate law student with a strong commitment to legal scholarship and public discourse. 

He is a legal reasoner, researcher, writer, and commentator, known for his analytical approach to contemporary legal issues. 

His work spans legal articles, research papers, and critical reviews, many of which are accessible online.

His writing focuses on the intersection of law, Governance, society, Creative Economy and digital culture, where he examines emerging legal challenges and offers thought-provoking insights. 

Through his work, he seeks to challenge assumptions and promote critical legal thinking.

He can be reached on social Media via his name.

Email: jacobshekwobashawyesamuel@gmail.com

Whatsap: +2349033955433