By Kayode Ajulo
On a recent morning in Akure, as it is my practice since I became the Attorney General of the State, I sat in the company of referred traditional ruler, some community leaders and concerned citizens. The stories differed, but the anxiety was remarkably similar. A farmer lamented his inability to cultivate vast portions of his farmland for fear of criminal attacks. A school proprietor spoke of parents increasingly reluctant to entrust their children to boarding facilities in an era marked by recurring kidnappings. A community leader recounted how villages now organize informal vigilante arrangements simply to compensate for perceived gaps in formal policing.
As I listened, one thought became inescapable: every constitutional arrangement must ultimately answer a simple but profound question, how effectively does it secure the lives, liberties and property of the people?
It is in answering that question that the debate over State Police assumes both constitutional and moral significance.
Constitutions are not mere legal texts. They are living instruments through which societies organize power in pursuit of peace, order and good governance. When circumstances change, institutions must evolve. When realities shift, governance structures must adapt. A nation that refuses to reform eventually finds itself governed by yesterday’s assumptions in today’s world.
The history of policing in Nigeria vividly illustrates this truth.
Before Independence on October 1, 1960, and in the years immediately following it, the regions exercised substantial control over security administration within their territories. The Western Region, under the visionary leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, understood that governance was most effective when institutions were closest to the people they served. Security, like education and healthcare, was viewed as a practical responsibility requiring local knowledge, cultural familiarity and administrative responsiveness.
The military intervention of January 15, 1966, and the centralisation that followed fundamentally altered that trajectory. Powers that had once been exercised closer to the people became concentrated at the centre. Over time, a policing framework designed for a far smaller and less complex nation was retained despite dramatic demographic, technological and security transformations.
Today, Nigeria is a federation of over two hundred million people confronting terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, cybercrime, cultism, farmer-herder conflicts and increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprises. The threats are local in execution but national in consequence. Criminal networks exploit forests, borders, technology and community vulnerabilities with alarming sophistication, while our security architecture often remains constrained by excessive centralisation.
That perhaps explains why the call for State Police has persisted across generations.
Successive constitutional conferences have recommended it. Security experts have advocated it. Governors have endorsed it. Traditional rulers have supported it. Citizens across political, ethnic and religious divides increasingly recognize its necessity.
The argument is straightforward.
A police officer familiar with the language, terrain, customs and intelligence networks of a community is often better positioned to prevent crime than one operating from a distant command structure. Security intelligence gathered locally is frequently more accurate and actionable than intelligence transmitted through multiple bureaucratic layers.
Security delayed is security denied.
The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead observed that “the art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.” The State Police conversation is not a demand for disorder. It is a call for intelligent adaptation. It is an acknowledgment that a federation must possess the courage to align its institutions with contemporary realities.
Yet beyond the practical arguments lies an even more compelling constitutional imperative.
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), provides that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” That provision is not a pious aspiration. It is a constitutional command. Every institution of government must ultimately be measured against its capacity to fulfil that obligation.
Admittedly, Section 214(1) of the Constitution presently establishes “one Police Force for Nigeria.” Consequently, the establishment of State Police requires constitutional amendment rather than executive fiat. This reality underscores the historic significance of the current reform efforts. What is being contemplated is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is a constitutional evolution.
The constitutional case for State Police is, in truth, a constitutional case for the completion of Nigerian federalism.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently defended the principles of federalism against undue centralisation. In Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1, the apex court reaffirmed the constitutional autonomy of states within their respective spheres and emphasized the federal character of the Nigerian constitutional order.
Similarly, in Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 764) 542, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Constitution establishes coordinate governments operating within constitutionally defined spheres and that the delicate balance of the federation must be preserved through fidelity to constitutional boundaries.
Indeed, over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently recognised that federalism contemplates governments that are coordinate and independent within their constitutional competences. The essence of federalism is therefore not the concentration of power, but its intelligent distribution.
Not over-centralisation, but coordination.
Not domination, but cooperation.
Not uniformity, but effectiveness.
Not fear, but foresight.
Critics of State Police raise legitimate concerns. They warn of possible abuse by state authorities and point to painful historical experiences. Such concerns deserve serious consideration.
But the possibility of abuse is not an argument against reform; it is an argument for safeguards.
We do not abolish legislatures because laws may be abused. We do not dismantle courts because judges may err. We do not abandon elections because politicians may manipulate them. The proper response to potential abuse is accountability, oversight and constitutional restraint.
The challenge before Nigeria, therefore, is not whether State Police should exist. The challenge is how it should be constitutionally designed.
Independent oversight mechanisms, professional recruitment standards, transparent funding structures, legislative supervision, judicial accountability and clearly defined operational boundaries must form part of the framework. The objective is not merely to create another police institution; it is to create a more effective and constitutionally responsible security architecture.
This is where leadership becomes decisive.
Throughout his public life, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has consistently advocated constitutional restructuring and a more functional federal arrangement. Long before assuming office, he argued that Nigeria’s development and security challenges demanded a re-examination of the concentration of powers at the centre.
Today, he occupies a unique place in history.
Leadership moments rarely arrive with fanfare. They often emerge disguised as difficult decisions that previous generations postponed.
For decades, State Police existed largely as a recommendation contained in conference reports, constitutional memoranda and scholarly discourse. Many supported it; few possessed the political courage necessary to move it from aspiration to reality.
President Tinubu deserves considerable credit for changing that narrative.
By advancing bold constitutional reforms and demonstrating the political will to engage one of Nigeria’s most consequential governance questions, he has moved the State Police conversation from theory to practical constitutional engagement. In doing so, he has shown a clear appreciation of an enduring principle of governance: institutions must evolve if nations are to endure.
The advancement of State Police belongs within the broader tradition of courageous reforms. It reflects an understanding that the security architecture of the twenty-first century cannot be effectively managed through assumptions inherited from another era.
Particular recognition must also be accorded to the Nigerian Governors’ Forum headed by His Excellency Abdulrahman Abdulrazak of Kwara State, President’s Chief of Staff, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, and the new Inspector General of Police, whose positions and engagements with stakeholders across the federation have reinforced confidence in the reform process.
The assurances, commitments and undertakings so far regarding the constitutionalisation of State Police have demonstrated a firm appreciation of both the urgency and necessity of this historic undertaking.
I must equally note the optimism and passion of my principal, Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of our Sunshine State.
The significance of these efforts extends beyond policing itself.
At its core, the State Police initiative is about restoring confidence in federalism.
Federalism is not merely a constitutional arrangement. It is a philosophy of governance. It recognizes that while national unity remains indispensable, local realities must be respected. It acknowledges that a federation is strongest not when all powers are concentrated at the centre, but when responsibilities are intelligently distributed among its constituent units.
History teaches that great nations flourish when institutions evolve alongside society. The United States strengthened its federal system by empowering states within a constitutional framework. Canada matured by respecting provincial autonomy while preserving national cohesion. Successful federations understand that effective governance is often governance closest to the people.
Nigeria cannot indefinitely remain an exception.
The kidnappings of schoolchildren, attacks on rural communities, displacement of farmers and growing insecurity across various parts of the federation all point toward one unavoidable conclusion: our security architecture must evolve.
William Shakespeare wrote in Measure for Measure that “our doubts are traitors.” For too long, doubts have delayed necessary reforms. For too long, apprehension has overshadowed innovation.
The true test of leadership is not whether one inherits a challenge but whether one possesses the courage to address it.
If this moment is seized with wisdom, constitutional fidelity and patriotic commitment, future generations may well remember President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the leader under whose watch Nigeria finally completed one of the most important chapters in its federal evolution.
For in the final analysis, the measure of a federation is not the volume of power concentrated at its centre but the effectiveness with which it protects the lives, liberties and dignity of its people.
And the measure of leadership is not merely the preservation of inherited structures but the courage to improve them.
That is the standard history will apply.
That is the promise of federalism.
That is the constitutional duty imposed by Section 14(2)(b) of our Constitution.
And that is why State Police remains the unfinished federalism whose time has finally come.
*Dr. Ajulo, OON and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Ondo State
