The long-running debate over the creation of state police in Nigeria appears to be nearing its conclusion as constitutional amendments move closer to completion, but questions remain over how the new policing structure will operate and whether it can effectively improve national security without becoming a political tool.
These were the central arguments advanced by veteran journalist and public affairs analyst Simon Kolawole in his latest commentary, where he examined Nigeria’s policing challenges, the case for state police, and the safeguards needed to prevent abuse.
Kolawole began by reflecting on his daily experience driving through Lagos, where motorists frequently encounter multiple security and traffic enforcement agencies.
According to him, residents now interact with officers from the Nigeria Police Force, Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA), Lagos State Neighbourhood Safety Corps (LNSC), military patrol teams and, at times, Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO).
He argued that despite the growing number of uniformed personnel on Nigerian roads, security challenges persist across the country.
With state police now on the horizon, Nigerians may soon see another layer of law enforcement operating alongside existing federal agencies.
Momentum for state policing has increased significantly following support from the Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly’s approval of constitutional amendments required to establish state-controlled police forces.
Once at least 24 state legislatures endorse the amendment, the bill will be forwarded to President Bola Tinubu for assent.
Tinubu has consistently advocated state policing throughout his political career, making presidential approval widely anticipated if the constitutional process is completed.
Supporters of state policing argue that Nigeria’s current centralised police structure can no longer adequately respond to the country’s growing security challenges.
Advocates believe governors should exercise greater authority over security within their states by overseeing recruitment, funding and administration of state police formations.
They also argue that policing from Abuja has become increasingly ineffective in tackling terrorism, kidnapping, banditry, insurgency and violent crime across Nigeria’s diverse communities.
Many see state police as a key feature of true federalism, pointing to countries such as the United States where policing responsibilities are shared between federal and subnational governments. The campaign for decentralised policing is not new.
Kolawole recalled that as far back as 1955, lawmakers had proposed regional policing arrangements that would allow local authorities greater control over law enforcement.
Political leaders including the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo argued that regional governments should possess the constitutional authority to maintain law and order within their jurisdictions.
At the time, both the Western and Northern Regions operated local police services.
However, concerns over political interference and partisan abuse led to widespread opposition, and following the military takeover in 1966, policing became fully centralised under the federal government.
Despite acknowledging the potential benefits of state policing, Kolawole expressed concerns that governors could misuse state-controlled police against political opponents.
He pointed to the conduct of many state electoral commissions, where ruling parties frequently dominate local government elections, as evidence that political neutrality remains a challenge at the state level.
According to him, opposition parties could face greater intimidation if governors gain direct control over armed police formations.
However, he also acknowledged that similar allegations have been made against the federal government regarding the use of federal security agencies for political purposes.
This, he argued, suggests that abuse of power is not unique to either federal or state policing.
While constitutional safeguards and operational guidelines are expected to regulate state police, Kolawole questioned whether such legal protections would be sufficient.
He noted that existing laws already prohibit political interference in policing and guarantee respect for human rights, yet violations continue to occur.
For that reason, he believes effective oversight, accountability and institutional independence will be more important than merely creating additional legal provisions.
With state police appearing increasingly inevitable, Kolawole argued that national attention should now move beyond the question of whether the system should exist.
Instead, policymakers should focus on practical issues that will determine its success.
These include recruitment standards, officer welfare, professional training, operational independence, funding mechanisms and the deployment of modern policing technology.
He also stressed the importance of building effective oversight institutions capable of preventing political manipulation while ensuring that state police improve public safety.
Kolawole concluded that although concerns over possible abuse remain valid, Nigeria has reached a stage where the establishment of state police is becoming politically unavoidable.
If properly implemented, he believes the reform could contribute to reducing insecurity and strengthening law enforcement across the country.
The ultimate test, however, will be whether the new policing structure serves the interests of ordinary Nigerians or becomes another instrument of political control.
