Iyobosa Uwugiaren examines the issues enveloping President Bola Tinubu’s reform for the Nigeria Police Force, and fears of political power grab being expressed by some stakeholders.
When Ebonyi State Governor, Hon. Francis Nwifuru was quoted as saying he had the power to “consume and destroy opposition members during a political gathering”, the comment quickly moved beyond political show business.
In a country already debating the creation of state police and its implications for the political environment, it landed as something more disturbing—a reminder of how concentrated state power can become when unchecked.
For many Nigerians, Governor Nwifuru’s remark sharpened an uncomfortable question–now sitting at the centre of the national conversation: if governors already command vast political influence, what happens when they also gain operational control over armed police structures within their states—as currently being proposed?
That question has become more urgent as the country moves closer to constitutional amendments that could establish state police, in response to Nigeria’s deepening security crisis marked by banditry, kidnapping, terrorism and widespread communal violence.
Across the country, insecurity has reached frightening levels. Rural communities face repeated attacks, urban centres continue to battle violent crime, and entire states have seen displacement of populations. And the Nigeria Police Force, centrally controlled from Abuja, is widely seen as overstretched, under-resourced, and often too distant to respond swiftly to local threats. It is against this backdrop that the debate over state police has returned with renewed intensity.
President Bola Tinubu said his decision to send the State Police Bill to the National Assembly is aimed at reforming Nigeria’s security system by allowing states to establish their own police forces alongside the Nigeria Federal Police Force.
According to the President, the current centralised policing structure has become overstretched in addressing growing security challenges such as terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, armed robbery, and communal conflicts.
He believes that creating state police will improve security by bringing law enforcement closer to the people, enabling faster responses to crime, strengthening intelligence gathering, and promoting more effective policing based on local knowledge.
Tinubu described the proposal as part of his administration’s broader effort to strengthen the country’s security architecture, enhance public safety, and give state governments a greater role in maintaining law and order while working in collaboration with the federal police.
At the same time, the proposal has generated vigorous debate, with supporters arguing that it will strengthen security, while critics have expressed concerns about the potential misuse of state police by political office holders, especially the state governors and the need for robust constitutional safeguards.
Uba Sani’s Case: Security Must Be Local
Among the strongest advocates is Kaduna State Governor, Senator Uba Sani, who argues that Nigeria’s security challenges cannot be effectively managed from a single command structure in Abuja.
According to him, security is inherently local. Officers recruited from the communities they serve understand the terrain, languages, cultural dynamics and social networks that are critical for intelligence gathering and crime prevention. This local familiarity, he argues, is essential for preventing crime rather than merely reacting to it.
Governor Sani, who is an unrepentant advocate of true federalism, maintains that state police would not replace the Nigeria Police Force but complement it. While the federal police would retain responsibility for terrorism, interstate crime and national security threats, state police would focus on community-level policing, rapid response and intelligence-driven operations.
He further argues that decentralisation would improve accountability, as citizens would have greater access to law enforcement officers operating within their immediate environment. For him, Nigeria’s size, population and complexity make it unrealistic for a single centralised force to effectively secure every community.
Yet even as the security argument strengthens, political suspicions around the reform are also growing.
Atiku Abubakar’s Fear over Timing
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned the timing and political context surrounding renewed efforts to introduce state police.
While not opposing the idea outright, he has argued that introducing such a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s security system at a sensitive political period raises legitimate concerns about motive.
According to him, reforms of this magnitude must be clearly insulated from partisan influence to avoid creating the perception that they are designed—or could be used—to shape political outcomes.
His concerns reflect a wider apprehension among opposition figures and civil society organisations who fear that, without strong safeguards, state police could be used by governors to intimidate political opponents, restrict opposition activity, or influence electoral competition.
But, supporters of the reform reject this interpretation, insisting that the push for state police is driven by long-standing security concerns rather than political calculation. They point out that the idea has been debated for decades across constitutional conferences, security summits and governance reform panels.
‘’Some people are insufferable. How could those who have tolerated multifarious public and private security outfits in the country to supplement policing be against state police establishment and still be mouthing re-federalisation’’, a senior lawyer and human rights activist, Jiti Ogunye queries.
Governor Nwifuru’s Remarks and Public Anxiety
Still, remarks attributed to Governor Nwifuru have intensified public anxiety around the proposal. For critics, the issue is not only what was said, but what it symbolises. If a sitting governor can openly suggest overwhelming political dominance over opponents, they argue, it raises legitimate questions about how such authority might be exercised if extended into operational control over armed policing structures.
The fear is that state police, instead of becoming tools for improved security, could become instruments of political enforcement in highly competitive and often polarised state environments.
Why the Debate Will Not Fizzle Out
Despite these concerns, pressure for reform continues to mount. Nigeria’s security challenges have become increasingly localised and complex. Armed groups operate across state boundaries, rural communities remain vulnerable to attacks, and urban crime continues to evolve in difficulty. Many citizens feel disconnected from a policing system that appears distant and reactive rather than preventive.
Supporters of decentralisation argue that the current model is no longer fit for purpose and that maintaining a fully centralised police force is increasingly untenable for a country of Nigeria’s size.
However, opponents of state police often point to Nigeria’s First Republic, when regional governments operated their own police forces. Allegations of political interference, abuse of power and suppression of opposition were said to have contributed to instability and eventually to the centralisation of policing under military rule. And that historical memory continues to shape present-day resistance to decentralisation, particularly among those who fear a repeat of past mistakes in a modern democratic context.
Legal Safeguards Being Proposed
To address these fears, constitutional experts have proposed a range of safeguards aimed at preventing political abuse of state police.
One of the most important proposals is the establishment of independent State Police Service Commissions responsible for recruitment, discipline, promotions and transfers. These bodies, according to experts, would include representation from civil society, the legal profession, traditional institutions and retired security experts, and operate independently of governors.
Another safeguard is the requirement that appointments of State Commissioners of Police be confirmed by State Houses of Assembly, with removal strictly regulated by constitutional procedures. Experts also recommend fixed tenure for police leadership to protect operational independence and prevent arbitrary dismissal for political reasons.
Another safeguard being proposed is judicial oversight, with courts empowered to review cases involving unlawful detention, abuse of authority and politically motivated arrests through expedited processes.
In addition, the Federal Police Force would retain responsibility for terrorism, interstate crime and national security matters, ensuring that state police do not operate outside a unified national security framework.
Independent police complaints mechanisms, transparent funding systems, merit-based recruitment and strict human rights protections are also widely recommended.
Ultimately, the debate over state police reflects a deeper tension in Nigeria’s governance system: the need to strengthen security institutions while ensuring they are not captured by political interests.
On one side are advocates like Governor Sani, who see decentralisation as the only realistic path to improving security outcomes in a large and diverse federation.
On the other are critics like Atiku Abubakar, who warn that timing, trust and political context matter just as much as institutional design.
Hovering over the debate are public anxieties amplified by remarks such as those attributed to Governor Nwifuru—statements that, whether rhetorical or not, reinforce concerns about how power is exercised at the state level.
The challenge before Nigerian lawmakers is therefore not simply whether to create state police, but how to design a system that strengthens security without weakening democracy.
If successful, the reform could mark a turning point in Nigeria’s fight against insecurity. If mishandled, it could deepen fears of political misuse of force and further complicate an already fragile security environment.
For now, the country remains suspended between necessity and caution—between the promise of safer communities and the fear that the instruments of protection could, in the wrong hands, become instruments of control.
