State police: A dangerous rush to reform

The worsening insecurity across Nigeria has revived calls for major reforms in the country’s policing structure. Kidnappings, banditry, terrorism and violent crime have understandably pushed many Nigerians to demand new approaches to protecting lives and property. Among the proposals attracting increasing attention is the creation of state police. The debate gained fresh momentum following recent developments within the police leadership. The newly appointed Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, in less than two weeks in office, inaugurated a committee to examine the implementation framework for state police. The committee, chaired by Professor Olu Ogunsakin, reportedly submitted its report within a short period without consulting Nigerians as widely as many expected. At first glance, the idea of state police appears attractive. Supporters argue that decentralising policing will bring law enforcement closer to local communities, improve intelligence gathering and ensure quicker responses to crime. Yet Nigeria’s political and social realities make the issue far more complicated. Nigeria is a deeply heterogeneous country made up of hundreds of ethnic groups and diverse religious communities. Managing such diversity has always required careful balancing within national institutions. This partly explains why the country’s constitution places critical security responsibilities under federal authority. A centralised police structure was designed to preserve neutrality and prevent the emergence of competing armed institutions controlled by local political authorities. In such a fragile federation, the establishment of state-controlled police forces may create more problems than solutions. Nigeria may not yet be institutionally prepared for state police. One major concern relates to governance at the state level. In many states, political authority has become heavily personalised around governors, while institutions meant to provide oversight remain weak. Opposition voices and critics are sometimes intimidated or marginalised. In such an atmosphere, placing armed police forces directly under governors could encourage draconian and anti-democratic tendencies. Another major concern is the potential misuse of state police during elections. Such a force could be used to intimidate opposition parties, influence electoral outcomes or create conditions that lead to disputed or inconclusive elections. This would pose a serious threat to Nigeria’s hard-earned democratic gains. Without strong institutional safeguards, state police could easily become instruments for suppressing political opponents rather than professional law enforcement agencies serving the broader public interest. Nigeria’s democratic history unfortunately contains examples where public institutions were used to influence elections, harass dissenting voices and intimidate opponents. Supporters of state police often cite countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom where decentralised policing systems operate successfully. However, simply copying foreign models does not guarantee success in Nigeria. Those systems evolved within societies that built strong institutions, independent judicial systems and traditions of accountability. Nigeria’s institutions are still evolving, and reforms should reflect local political realities rather than replicate systems designed for different environments. Experiences from other countries also offer cautionary lessons. In parts of Mexico, some municipal police forces became compromised by drug cartels due to weak oversight and local political pressures. In several cases, federal authorities had to dissolve entire police departments after investigations uncovered links with organised crime. Another major concern involves weapons procurement and control. If state police are eventually created, who will regulate and supply their weapons? Would state governments independently procure arms for their police forces, or would the federal government supply the weapons while governors retain operational control? Both possibilities raise serious concerns. Allowing states to independently purchase and control arms for their police formations may be too risky for a country already battling terrorism, banditry, separatist agitations and cross-border criminal activities. The establishment of state-backed armed police formations operating separately from the federal police could create a fragmented security environment with multiple armed authorities functioning under different political interests and operational standards. Such a development may deepen tensions in an already fragile federation. Security reform is also not something that should be rushed or designed merely to fit within a political tenure. Any major restructuring of Nigeria’s policing system requires careful study, broad national dialogue and gradual implementation over several years. Reforms involving armed institutions demand patience, strategic planning and institutional maturity. I also call on the United Nations and other international partners to provide constructive guidance to Nigeria in a manner that respects the country’s sovereignty and national unity. Jurisdictional challenges also deserve attention. Criminals do not respect state boundaries. If a suspect commits a crime in one state and escapes into another, would the pursuing state police have authority to continue operations across state lines? Without clear operational protocols, criminals could exploit such loopholes to evade arrest. There is also the issue of accountability. Presently, many state governments appear less accountable to citizens than the federal government. Governance at the state level is often heavily personalised around governors, with limited tolerance for criticism or independent scrutiny. Rather than creating separate state police structures, both the federal and state governments should contribute a defined percentage of their monthly allocations to strengthen and adequately fund the Nigeria Police Force under one national command structure. In addition, every local government area should contribute a certain number of recruits to the national police service to strengthen community policing and local intelligence gathering. However, to preserve national unity and avoid ethnic or political loyalty to local authorities, a reasonable percentage of police personnel serving in each state should come from other parts of the country under strict federal supervision. There is therefore the need to gradually shift from the concept of a “Police Force” to a “Police Service” that prioritises service to citizens rather than force. Such a transformation would help build public trust, professionalism and community partnership within Nigeria’s policing system. The proliferation of multiple autonomous armed paramilitary formations is rarely advisable in a multiethnic country like Nigeria. Fragmenting armed authority across 36 states risks deepening political and ethnic tensions rather than strengthening national security. Nigeria should also work towards building a strong national identity rather than encouraging polarised ethnic politics and narrow nationalism. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should prioritise the task of building a united, peaceful, democratic and prosperous nation for both present and future generations. In this modern era, ethnic jingoism cannot lead Nigeria towards the stable and prosperous future its citizens deserve. Nigeria should also consider its geographical realities. The country shares long and often poorly monitored borders with neighbouring countries. Cross-border criminal networks and arms trafficking already complicate the security landscape. Introducing multiple armed police structures without strong national coordination could weaken the country’s overall security management. It is, therefore, important for the President, the National Assembly, and other stakeholders to carefully examine Nigeria’s political realities before taking any decision to arm thirty-six separate police forces. Presidential candidates of major political parties should also clearly tell Nigerians during election campaigns the type of policing structure and security reforms they intend to pursue if elected. Such fundamental national security policies should form part of open democratic debate before elections, not unexpected post-election surprises. Nigeria certainly needs stronger policing. But reforms aimed at improving security should be approached carefully so they do not create new layers of instability for a country already navigating complex political and social realities. Strengthening the Nigeria Police Force under one national umbrella may ultimately serve the country better than embarking on a risky security experiment whose long-term consequences remain uncertain. Adam, Ph.D wrote from Abuja.