By OPEYEMI BAMIDELE
Nigeria, the country of our collective heritage, is again at a point of inflection. This is a reality that viciously confronts this federation of six geo-political zones, 36 states and 774 local government areas with a population of 242.46 million. We all have the duty to confront this reality with facts and not fictions, courage and not trepidation, clarity of purpose and not mere skepticism.
At this point, we are confronted with two fundamental choices. The first deals with the choice of retaining the country’s heavily centralized police structure that can no longer respond decisively to the starkest realities of our federation. This does not suggest that the Nigeria Police has not discharged its core mandates well before now. But it is because the new security environment demands an entirely new approach given our population size and the emerging threats. It is also because the present police structure often limits the ability of sub-national authorities to respond effectively and promptly to security challenges within their jurisdictions.
The second lies with the choice of embracing a decentralized police structure that promotes and simplifies command and control, response and reconnaissance, deployment and synergy in the way we henceforth protect and secure lives, private assets and public installations. One vital question remains: Do we continue with the current police structure? No, we cannot continue with it considering the scale of internal challenges that now threaten our vital, strategic and even peripheral interests more than at any time in our recent history.
The cost of retaining such an overstretched structure far outweighs its benefits in all ramifications. We have canvassed this position over and over again, especially amid the escalation of armed violence in different parts of the federation. We have lost innocent lives in hundreds, even in thousands. Businesses have been crippled while families have been displaced from their comfort zones. Governments—both national and sub-national—have suffered huge economic haemorrhage due to these recurrent security challenges.
In its 2023 study, for instance, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated the cumulative economic loss to violent extremism in the North-East alone at $100 billion. We may lose between $150 and $200 billion more if the trend continues. This value, according to the study, is equivalent to a 2.5% contraction of our GDP. This does not include the economic cost of banditry, kidnapping and armed violence in the North-West as well as violent conflicts between farmers and herders in the Middle Belt, among others.
The human cost is perhaps unquantifiable. It has indeed eclipsed our human development index in an age when the real engine of growth and prosperity lies heavily in the quality of human minds a country can produce to drive innovation and development. Sadly enough, we are losing some of our bright and great minds to insecurity and armed violence directly and indirectly. The degree of humanitarian crises resulting from insecurity obviously remains a dark spot that still blights our national conscience to this moment.
The crises are daily fresh at the sight of women who are now consigned to IDP camps in their thousands; active men whose household economies have crashed; and children whose futures are gravely threatened and education truncated. These are the grim realities we have been living with for about two decades. We have increased police budgets annually to ensure its adequate funding. We have recruited more officers to boost police operations. We have invested heavily in security equipment to strengthen our combat and reconnaissance capability. Yet, we have not been able to tame the tide of insecurity sufficiently.
Do we surrender our sovereignty to violent non-state actors and look away from these grim realities? We cannot look away at all. The reason is not far-fetched: We have the responsibility to act under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). And the responsibility entails building a resilient political environment that can guarantee the safety and security of all regardless of their ethnic, political and religious leanings. So, our decision to act and recalibrate our sub-optimal police system and accommodate a decentralized police system that has turned the tides elsewhere did not emanate from mere partisan politics. It arose from the burden of duty that the Constitution places upon the National Assembly “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof…”
What exactly does the responsibility to act mean to us at the National Assembly? It suggests the exigency of acting with clarity and precision in the face of national challenges or unpleasant experiences. It also suggests the compelling need for a paradigm shift that guarantees the attainment of our collective goal. That shift entails an empirical analysis of the current police structure and also demands multi-tiered engagements with critical stakeholders to garner alternative views across the federation. While nearly all stakeholders agreed to the need to devolve policing powers to sub-national governments, they demanded guardrails that will no doubt prevent the abuse of police powers at the sub-national levels. We duly appreciate such honest demands, and we can never do less.
We truly recognize the strategic national significance of building accountability and oversight mechanisms that can prevent the abuse of state police by some political actors. In the first instance, we have clearly defined the constitutional mandates of federal and state police formations. Under the proposal, the federal police service will, among others, concentrate on the protection of federal institutions; policing of the Federal Capital Territory; counter-terrorism; organized crime, cybercrime; border security; arms trafficking; inter-state criminal activities; and other national security matters.
Under Section 214, specifically, a state police service is proposed to enforce state laws; maintain public safety and public order; detect and prevent crimes within its jurisdiction; protect lives and property; and discharge other policing responsibilities within a specific sub-national jurisdiction. This proposal, in essence, aims at preventing inter-agency conflict and frictions; speeding up response to distress calls; and maintaining strong security presence in vast ungoverned territories that the present police formations have not been able to effectively secure before now.
Since every federation is founded on the dual principles of cooperation and diversity, the state police bill recommends a point of seamless intervention between federal police service and state police service. But it delineates clearly defined contexts where a state police service cannot guarantee order and stability within its jurisdiction and the intervention of the federal police becomes imperative. The federal intervention is not automatic. There are conditions that must be satisfied before such an intervention can take place. One such condition requires a specific state government to make a formal request for federal intervention. Also, upon the request, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces must grant approval in writing before eventual deployment.
The proposal further creates carefully regulated mechanisms for the intervention of the federal police. The intervention can only be granted when there is an outright breakdown of public order; where a state police service is incapable of functioning; where there are serious abuses of fundamental rights; where there is partisan or electoral intimidation; and when national security is heavily strained and threatened.
To avoid any form of abuse, the bill creates the State Police Service Commission. In design, the Commission will serve as the regulatory authority of the state police system. Under this arrangement, the Commission will be authorised “to, without the approval or control of the governor, make rules regulating its own procedure or conferring powers and imposing duties on any officer or authority for the purpose of discharging its functions under the 1999 Constitution.” This simply aims at prohibiting the use of police powers for partisan, ethnic, religious, sectional or personal purposes.
The bill goes beyond the mere creation of the State Police Service Commission for the purpose of effective regulation. It equally provides for the financial autonomy of the state police service. The bill recommends that any amount standing “to the credit of a State Police Service Commission established for a State shall be paid directly to the Commission.” This intends to prevent a situation whereby a state police service will be starved of funds, a situation that can create gaps in police operations and responses.
The state police formation will, according to the bill, be under the command of the Commissioner of Police. It thus creates a three-layer control mechanism that different independent authorities will midwife in order to guarantee quality assurance in combat operations, response and reconnaissance. First, it authorises the governor of a state to appoint or nominate a qualified individual that will play the role of police commissioner. Second, it also creates the National Police Council, a national constitutional body that will handle overall policy, funding and appointments of the police. Its roles are similar to the National Judicial Council, which serves as the clearing house for the appointments of all national and state judicial officers. Third, the recommendation of the Council is not final. Before it can be effective, it requires a two-thirds approval of the state legislature before the appointment process can be effective.
The bill also provides for the removal and suspension of a police commissioner under Section 215. It recommends that a state police “shall not be suspended or removed except for stated cause, in accordance with a fair hearing, on the recommendation of the National Police Council and subject to approval by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of members of the House of Assembly of the State.” This is another guardrail designed and proposed to embolden every police operative at the state level to discharge their responsibilities with utmost professionalism and within the ambit of the law.
The bill further recommends the governor to “authorise or give lawful directions in writing, being directions of general policy, to the Commissioner of Police on the need to ensure and guarantee public safety and public order in the state.” However, this proposal comes with a proviso that no direction “shall require the arrest, detention, investigation, non-investigation, deployment or use of force against any named person, political party, association or class of persons except in accordance with law; or require a police service or any member of a police service to act unlawfully, violate fundamental rights, suppress lawful political activity, discriminate against any person or group, or enforce the law for a partisan, ethnic, religious, sectional or personal.”
Under Section 216, also, the National Assembly is designated as the oversight authority that “will prescribe national minimum standards applicable to both federal and state police services.” It can only prescribe standards on such matters as police recruitment, vetting, training, certification, appointment, promotion, discipline, conduct, use of force, firearms, custody, complaints, criminal information, inter-governmental cooperation, public reporting and accountability. However, according to the proposal, the state legislature may pass a law that will prescribe standards for a state police service that are higher than or additional to national minimum standards, and that such standards shall not derogate from or fall below those standards.
These are just a synopsis of guardrails already provided for in the constitution alteration bill. We have done quite a lot to recalibrate the country’s current police structure. Our decision is based on the need to introduce a new system that can respond more decisively to security challenges at different levels. We must not forget that Nigeria is a federation, and every federation is built on compromise and consensus codified in the Constitution. Even though the Constitution is final, it is subject to fine-tuning and review in order to reform key sections that no longer effectively serve our cultural, economic, political, social and technological interests. That is exactly one of the mandates to which we are utterly committed, and our commitment is in the national interest and not for any cynical or personal gain.
Contrary to observations by some skeptics, we must bear in mind that the state police bill is purely a child of necessity and not political expediency. It is obviously a product of national consensus and not cynicism, designed in response to violent non-state actors, whose heinous activities still endanger our collective peace and prosperity. It is thus compelling to quickly highlight the process that culminated in the passage of the state police bill at the National Assembly.
First, the process of accommodating state police in the country’s governance structure did not start recently. It was part of memoranda submitted to the Senate Ad-hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution. These memoranda have been subjected to rigorous process and multi-tiered consultation across the federation due to their sensitive nature. During this process, we broadly consulted the Executive, Nigerian Governors Forum, Conference of Speakers of the State Legislatures of Nigeria and the leadership of the Nigeria Police. In July 2025, we conducted public hearings in all geo-political zones, and the participants unanimously demanded and overwhelmingly approved the creation of state police. At other levels of consultation, nearly all stakeholders embraced this initiative in the light of the stark realities we are facing today.
Second, the Nigeria Police no longer sees the state police as an aberration. To its hierarchies, it is now a complementary public institution that will deepen and strengthen our national security. As a result, its leadership submitted a comprehensive memorandum that clearly lays out frameworks, guardrails and mechanisms that can make a decentralized police system work within our security context. The memorandum, specifically, proposes highly vital recommendations that helped the National Assembly to develop accountability and oversight mechanisms that can prevent the abuse of state police by some political actors. The resolve of the Nigeria Police to support this initiative, for me, highlights its strategic national significance to deal with insecurity at local and state levels.
Third, the state police bill was subjected to intense debates in the Senate and House of Representatives. Even though the All Progressives Congress (APC) is the majority party, opposition legislators actively took part in the process that approved the state police initiative. They exercised their discretion in favour of the proposal, mainly in the national interest and not on a parochial basis. In the Senate, for instance, 84 out of 109 members voted clause by clause in support of the Bill. This accounted for 77.06% approval in the Senate alone.
Globally, security is a collective public good that benefits the citizenry across ethnic, political and religious divides. Political actors elsewhere always throw off their togas of partisanship and parochialism to support initiatives that seek to boost and reinforce national security. At this challenging time, this should be the approach of opposition parties. Even when they disagree with the majority authority on some grounds, they are under obligations to provide credible and useful alternatives that can make our fatherland better, greater and more prosperous.
Unfortunately, they have not passed this critical test of opposition democracy. Certainly, the state police initiative is an issue of urgent public importance, which cannot and should not take a back seat because it does not align with the aspirations of some interests. For me, I insist, every matter that borders on national security must be accorded top priority by all, and must never be sacrificed to partisan interests. Given our increasingly complex security context, state police can no longer pose a threat to national unity. Rather, it presents us with an alternative model that guarantees our internal stability.
•Senator Bamidele, Majority Leader of the Senate, writes from Abuja.
