With an estimated population of 230 million citizens monitored by a chronically stretched federal apparatus numbering no fewer than 400,000 active personnel, the cracks in this unitary model have widened into gulfs.
From protracted insurgency in the North-East and widespread banditry in the North-West to recurrent farmer-herder clashes in the North-Central and rampant kidnapping across the South, localised security threats have routinely outpaced the response capacity of the government.
The journey towards state policing has been marked by decades of hesitation, committee reports, and legislative gridlock. However, that paradigm stands on the brink of an historic transformation.
The National Assembly is set to transmit the proposed State Police Bill to President Bola Tinubu for assent following the authentication of legislative approvals from 28 state Houses of Assembly.
The approval constitutionally surpasses the mandated threshold of two-thirds of the 36 states (24 states) stipulated in Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution.
Supporters of state police say the legislative milestone revives a fierce national debate for good reason.
As Nigeria inches towards a decentralised dual-policing framework, stakeholders across the political, legal and civil society spectrum are weighing the promise of grassroots security against the historic fears of authoritarian capture.
Mr Toke Adekola, an Abuja-based lawyer, said the current version does not seek to abolish the existing Nigeria Police Force (NPF).
“This new approach is anchored by the Sixth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution.
“Therefore, it establishes a complementary, dual-policing architecture where federal and state police structures can coexist, mirroring models found in classical federations like the United States, Australia and Germany.
“The framework attempts to build structural safety barriers to prevent the absolute concentration of power.
“Under the proposed design, state police services will have access to modern forensic records, biometric databases, and light arms, operating under state-level laws that cannot fall below minimum national standards,” Adekola said.
He also said institutional bodies such as an expanded National Police Council and newly mandated State Police Service Commissions are engineered to dilute unilateral executive control.
For advocates of state policing, the ongoing legislative momentum represents an overdue correction to an unworkable administrative anomaly.
They argue that a centralised police force is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of true federalism.
Providing insights, the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, said the bill was dispatched to state legislatures for consideration, triggering a rigorous administrative verification of votes and proceedings.
With 28 state assemblies successfully endorsing the constitutional amendment, stakeholders say the process has cleared its most demanding political hurdle.
A retired Assistant Inspector General of Police, Tunde Ogunshakin, speaking during stakeholder engagements on security decentralisation, emphasised the localised nature of crime.
“Crime is local, and law enforcement must equally be local. An officer deployed from a distant region, who does not speak the local language, understand cultural nuances, or know the terrain is severely handicapped in intelligence gathering,” he said.
Proponents point out that state-recruited personnel embedded within their communities are far more likely to cultivate actionable human intelligence, preempting criminal networks involved in kidnapping and banditry.
Under the current structure, state governors (often dubbed “Chief Security Officers” of their states) exercise limited operational control, frequently having to route urgent security requests through federal bottlenecks.
State police, stakeholders argue, would grant governors direct response tools and allow individual states to scale their police forces according to localised threat levels, funding capacities, and demographic realities.
In spite of the enthusiastic backing of many state chief executives and federal lawmakers, fierce opposition persists.
Civil society organisations, human rights advocates and political opposition groups have voiced profound reservations, warning that rushing into state policing without watertight safeguards could create regional “Leviathans”.
The Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) and Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) have consistently flagged the electoral and political risks inherent in state-controlled security apparatuses.
Critics argue that state governors (who already wield immense patronage powers over local government structures and state electoral commissions) could weaponise state police forces.
Prominent civil rights lawyer and public commentator, Femi Falana (SAN), has frequently cautioned against institutional abuse.
“The history of local government elections and political tolerance in Nigeria shows that state governors can easily convert a local security force into a private militia to suppress political opponents, restrict opposition rallies and manipulate electoral outcomes,” he said.
Beyond political intimidation, critics raise serious concerns about fiscal sustainability.
Economic disparities among Nigeria’s 36 states mean wealthy commercial hubs can easily fund, equip, and technologise robust police units, while economically fragile states may struggle to pay salaries.
Critics say this could lead to compromised security integrity, human rights abuses and rising corruption.
Recognising these valid fears, the architects of the National Policing Bill have sought to embed specific structural dampers.
Provisions within the legislative framework dictate that state governors will not possess absolute powers to hire or fire commissioners of police arbitrarily; instead, appointments must navigate institutional reviews through State Police Service Commissions.
Also, federal intervention mechanisms remain codified to prevent total anarchy should a sub-national unit step outside constitutional bounds.
As the paperwork transitions towards Tinubu’s desk for presidential assent, the ultimate success of state policing will depend less on the legislative euphoria of its passage and more on strict operational fidelity.
Civil society groups, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) have been touted to provide vital independent oversight at the state level.
One fact everyone agrees on is that state police in Nigeria is closer to fruition than at any point in the nation’s post-independence history.
It captures the eternal tension of federalism: the delicate balance between empowering local units to solve localised problems and guarding against the concentration of coercive power that threatens liberty.
Stakeholders believe that state-level policing can fix Nigeria’s fractured security landscape, as long as it includes fair recruitment, respect for human rights, and strong oversight from lawmakers.
However, critics warn that a poorly executed rollout could replace distant federal neglect with local abuse of power, making it vital for a nation facing insecurity to get this reform right for its future.
