State Police: Why Nigeria Should Not Be Held Back by Fear

By DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd), FSPSP, FIPMA, psc

The ongoing national conversation on the establishment of State Police has generated both strong support and genuine reservations. Those opposed to the reform often point to Nigeria’s historical experience with regional police, arguing that decentralising policing could encourage political abuse, threaten national unity and weaken professionalism.

These concerns deserve careful consideration. Constitutional reforms, particularly those relating to national security, should never be undertaken lightly. However, history should serve as a guide for reform rather than a barrier to progress.

Nigeria today is fundamentally different from the country that abolished the regional police system more than five decades ago. Democratic institutions have matured significantly. Constitutional governance is more deeply rooted, the judiciary is more independent, legislative oversight is stronger, the media is more vigilant, civil society is more active and citizens enjoy greater access to information and mechanisms for holding public officials accountable.

These institutional advances provide a more suitable environment for designing a policing system that reflects contemporary democratic principles. Rather than allowing the mistakes of the past to discourage reform, Nigeria should use those lessons to establish stronger safeguards against future abuse.

Decentralised policing is neither a new concept nor one unique to Nigeria. It is a defining feature of many successful federal democracies across the world. Countries operating federal systems maintain national and subnational police services with clearly defined constitutional responsibilities, professional standards, independent oversight and effective coordination.

Nigeria therefore has the advantage of learning from both its own history and international best practices. The country is not starting from scratch but can adopt proven safeguards while avoiding the pitfalls of earlier arrangements.

It is also important to recognise that the current proposal differs fundamentally from the former regional police system. The proposal before the National Assembly does not seek to replace the Nigeria Police Force. Rather, it envisions a complementary policing framework in which the Federal Police and State Police coexist, each exercising constitutionally defined responsibilities while cooperating through established mechanisms of coordination and accountability.

Under this arrangement, the Federal Police would retain responsibility for national security, terrorism, transnational and interstate crimes, border security, organised criminal networks and other federal offences. State Police would focus on community policing, local intelligence gathering, enforcement of state laws, neighbourhood crime prevention and rapid response to local security challenges.

Far from weakening national security, this complementary structure has the potential to strengthen it by bringing policing closer to the people while allowing the Federal Police to concentrate on strategic national responsibilities.

A major concern frequently raised is the possibility that State Police could be abused by political office holders. While such fears are understandable, the possibility of abuse is not unique to policing. Executive authority, legislative powers and electoral processes all carry inherent risks of misuse. Democratic societies do not abolish these institutions because of such risks. Instead, they strengthen constitutional safeguards, independent oversight, judicial review and public accountability.

The same principle should apply to State Police.

The proposed constitutional framework already provides stronger safeguards than existed under the previous regional police system. These include constitutional limits on powers, minimum operational standards, independent oversight, legislative supervision, judicial scrutiny, intergovernmental coordination and clearly defined circumstances for federal intervention. Together, these measures are intended to ensure that policing remains accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law rather than to individual office holders.

Perhaps the strongest argument for reform lies in Nigeria’s own experience. For more than five decades, the country has relied almost exclusively on a centralised policing structure. During that period, successive governments have introduced reforms, expanded recruitment, reorganised commands, acquired equipment and revised policing strategies. Yet insecurity has persisted across many parts of the country.

This is not a criticism of the Nigeria Police Force or its dedicated officers, whose commitment and sacrifices under extremely difficult conditions deserve national appreciation. Rather, it suggests that the scale and complexity of Nigeria’s evolving security challenges may now require a more decentralised and complementary institutional response.

Today’s security threats are increasingly local in nature. Effective intelligence often begins within communities, while timely intervention depends on officers who understand local languages, customs, geography and social dynamics. A well-regulated State Police system could significantly strengthen these capabilities while operating within nationally accepted constitutional standards.

It is equally important to recognise that constitutional reform is an evolving process. Democracies continually refine their institutions as experience reveals strengths and weaknesses. Should implementation expose gaps, both the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly possess the constitutional authority to amend existing laws, strengthen oversight mechanisms and improve operational frameworks. This is how enduring democratic institutions develop.

Nigeria should therefore approach the State Police debate with confidence, caution and constitutional discipline—not fear.

If properly designed and responsibly implemented, State Police can improve community safety, strengthen intelligence gathering, enhance collaboration with the Federal Police and bring law enforcement closer to the people without compromising national unity.

After more than fifty years of relying on a single centralised policing model, introducing a carefully regulated complementary policing system is not a leap into the unknown. It is a measured constitutional response to changing security realities, informed by history, strengthened by comparative experience and guided by democratic principles.

The real question before Nigeria is not whether reform carries risks—every meaningful reform does. The real question is whether the nation possesses the wisdom to learn from its past, the courage to improve its institutions and the determination to build a policing system that better serves the security needs of all Nigerians.

History should remain our teacher—not our jailer.