Iyobosa Uwugiaren reviews the Town Hall on Building a Consensus for State Police, organised by THISDAY/Arise News recently, arguing that the true measure of the event’s success will not lie in the quality of the discussions alone, but in whether the ideas generated influence the constitutional amendments and policy decisions that now lie ahead
Speakers at the THISDAY/ARISE News Town Hall on Building a National Consensus for State Police and National Security commended the Chairman/Editor-in-Chief of THISDAY/ARISE Media Group, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, for convening what many described as a timely and nationally significant national conversation.
Their commendations, however, went beyond acknowledging the organisers. They reflected the importance of a forum that assembled governors, federal lawmakers, security chiefs, policy experts and international security specialists to deliberate on one of the most consequential governance issues confronting Nigeria today.
More importantly, the town hall revealed that the national conversation on state police had shifted remarkably—from debating whether Nigeria should establish state police to determining how such a system could be designed to strengthen security without undermining democracy and the rule of law.
Throughout the deliberations, a broad consensus emerged that Nigeria’s worsening insecurity had exposed the limitations of its highly centralised policing architecture.
Yet participants were equally emphatic that creating state police, without corresponding constitutional amendments, judicial reforms, institutional safeguards, financial autonomy and operational accountability, could merely decentralise the weaknesses that have long plagued the Nigeria Police Force. The significance of the town hall, therefore, is not merely in advocating state police but in outlining the conditions necessary for its success.
For over six decades, Nigeria operated one of Africa’s most centralised policing systems. Every police officer ultimately answers to the Inspector-General of Police, while state governors—ironically designated as Chief Security Officers of their states—exercise virtually no operational control over the officers deployed within their jurisdictions. Senator Adams Oshiomhole captured this constitutional contradiction succinctly, arguing that governors are held accountable for security failures despite lacking authority over recruitment, deployment, promotion or discipline of police personnel.
The contradiction has become increasingly glaring as insecurity assumes more complex dimensions across the federation. Terrorism in the North-east, banditry in the North-west, kidnapping in the North-central, separatist violence in the South-east and organised criminality in parts of the South-west require responses that are often local, intelligence-driven and community-based.
A centrally controlled police force, however well-intentioned, has struggled to respond effectively to these diverse realities.
The legislative momentum behind the reform suggests that state police is no longer a distant aspiration. Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Benjamin Kalu disclosed that the National Assembly has entered the final phase of harmonising the constitutional amendment bill before transmitting it to the state Houses of Assembly. The growing support among governors equally indicates that political resistance to decentralised policing has diminished considerably.
Yet legislation alone, participants at the town Hall, argued, cannot guarantee effective policing.
One of the most insightful interventions came from former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, whose keynote address provided valuable international perspective.
While endorsing state police as “a step in the right direction,” Barak reminded participants that institutional reforms must always reflect national realities. He argued that Israel’s highly centralised policing system functions largely because of its relatively small geographical size. Nigeria, by contrast, he added, possesses a vast territory, enormous population and extraordinary cultural diversity that demand a different security architecture.
His endorsement, however, came with important conditions: Decentralisation, he argued, must be accompanied by robust legal safeguards, national coordination and transparent oversight capable of preventing political abuse.
Equally significant was his insistence that intelligence gathering, rather than military deployment, remains the most effective weapon against terrorism.
Security experts, he said, deserve particular attention in Nigeria, where military forces have increasingly assumed policing responsibilities that are better handled by professional law enforcement institutions rooted within local communities.
The discussion equally exposed the inseparable relationship between policing and the administration of justice. Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo argued persuasively that state police cannot function optimally without corresponding judicial restructuring.
His advocacy for state Courts of Appeal and state Supreme Courts underscored a reality often ignored in public discourse: Policing does not end with arrest. Delayed prosecutions and prolonged appeals weaken public confidence in the entire criminal justice system.
His intervention broadened the debate beyond policing to encompass the wider architecture of justice administration. Without efficient courts, capable prosecutors and functional correctional institutions, policing reforms may achieve only limited results.
Funding emerged as another recurring concern. Although several governors insisted that states already devote substantial resources to supporting federal security agencies, establishing state police will require far more than purchasing patrol vehicles and communication equipment.
Sustainable policing depends on competitive remuneration, continuous professional training, forensic capability, modern technology, welfare, pensions and operational independence.
It was against this backdrop that Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele’s recommendation that state police funding should enjoy first-line charge status assumed considerable importance. Financial independence could serve as one of the strongest institutional safeguards against undue political influence.
Indeed, fears of political abuse remain the greatest obstacle confronting advocates of state police. The country’s democratic history provides sufficient evidence to justify such concerns.
Governors already wield considerable influence over state institutions, raising legitimate questions about whether decentralised policing could become another instrument for suppressing political opposition or influencing electoral outcomes.
The reservations expressed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan; Defence Minister, Gen. Christopher Musa (rtd.) and Professor Chidi Odinkalu therefore deserve careful consideration rather than dismissal. Democratic institutions are ultimately tested not by their performance under responsible leadership but by their resilience against abuse when less responsible leaders emerge.
Encouragingly, participants also proposed practical safeguards. Independent Police Service Commissions, civilian oversight bodies, ombudsmen, constitutional checks and clearly defined operational boundaries between governors and police commissioners featured prominently among the recommendations.
Their eventual incorporation into the legal framework may ultimately determine public confidence in the new policing system.
Another significant contribution was the emphasis placed on local government autonomy. Several speakers argued that genuine community policing cannot flourish where grassroots governance remains weak or financially dependent.
Effective intelligence gathering begins within communities, making empowered local institutions indispensable partners in any decentralised policing arrangement.
Technology likewise featured prominently in the discussions. Enugu State Governor Peter Mbah’s emphasis on artificial intelligence, surveillance infrastructure and smart policing reflects contemporary realities. Modern law enforcement increasingly depends on technology, data analysis, forensic science and integrated communication systems. Criminal networks have become more sophisticated; policing must evolve accordingly.
Perhaps the greatest caution came from former Chief of Defence Staff, General Lucky Irabor (rtd.), who warned against merely reproducing at state level the institutional deficiencies that have weakened the federal police. His observation captured the central challenge confronting the reform process.
Structural decentralisation alone cannot guarantee better policing unless accompanied by improvements in recruitment, professionalism, discipline, welfare and accountability.
Ultimately, the significance of the ARISE News Town Hall extended beyond the speeches delivered or the consensus reached. It demonstrated that Nigeria’s security debate has matured considerably.
The question is no longer whether the existing policing structure is under severe strain. Years of persistent insecurity have largely settled that argument. The more fundamental challenge is ensuring that state police become part of a comprehensive programme of constitutional, judicial and governance reforms rather than another isolated institutional experiment.
Prince Obaigbena deserves credit for providing a platform where this critical national conversation could take place.
However, the true measure of the town hall’s success will not lie in the quality of the discussions alone, but on whether the ideas generated influence the constitutional amendments and policy decisions that now lie ahead.
State police may well represent one of the most significant governance reforms since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999. But its success will depend not simply on creating another police institution. It will depend on building credible democratic institutions capable of protecting citizens, enforcing accountability and inspiring public trust.
That is the challenge the Abuja town hall placed squarely before the nation.