Nigeria’s long-running debate over decentralised policing has entered its most consequential stage after the National Assembly transmitted the state-police constitutional amendment bill to the 36 state Houses of Assembly for consideration.
The transmission moves the proposal beyond debate in Abuja and places its immediate future in the hands of state legislators. At least two-thirds of the state assemblies, meaning 24 of the 36, must approve the amendment before it can complete the constitutional alteration process and proceed for presidential assent.
The bill would clear the constitutional path for states to establish their own police services alongside the Nigeria Police Force. Policing is currently controlled from the federal level, even though state governors are frequently held responsible by residents when kidnappings, communal violence, banditry or other serious crimes overwhelm local communities.
The proposal has gathered momentum as insecurity has spread across regions with sharply different needs. The north-east continues to face insurgent violence, parts of the north-west and north-central struggle with banditry and mass kidnapping, the south-east has endured separatist-linked attacks, while oil theft, cult violence and organised crime remain serious concerns elsewhere.
Supporters of state police argue that officers recruited and managed closer to the communities they serve would understand local terrain, languages and networks better than a force directed principally from Abuja. They also believe shorter chains of command could improve emergency response and intelligence gathering.
“Nigeria’s centralised policing model slows emergency responses because states lack direct control.”
That assessment, offered by security analyst Ayomide Akinwale of SBM Intelligence, captures the central argument behind the reform. Advocates say Nigeria’s size, population and varied security threats have made a single command structure increasingly difficult to defend as the only workable model.
President Bola Tinubu has backed the creation of state police, giving the current proposal stronger political support than previous attempts that stalled amid disagreement between federal and state actors. Both chambers of the National Assembly have now acted on the proposal, but approval by state assemblies remains a separate and essential constitutional test.
The reform is not without serious risks. Critics fear that governors could use state police against political opponents, journalists, protesters or minority communities. Nigeria’s history of disputed elections and political intimidation has made safeguards against partisan control a central concern.
Funding is another unresolved question. Wealthier states may be able to recruit, train and equip credible forces, while poorer states could struggle to maintain salaries, welfare, vehicles, communications systems and forensic capacity. Uneven financing could produce unequal standards of public safety across the federation.
There are also questions about command, accountability and cooperation. Any new system will need clear rules governing the division of responsibilities between federal and state forces, particularly in cases involving terrorism, organised crime, border security or offences that cross state lines. Recruitment standards, training, complaints procedures and independent oversight will be equally important.
For ordinary Nigerians, the debate is less theoretical. Families in vulnerable communities want officers who can arrive quickly, understand the local environment and remain accountable when abuses occur. Businesses need safer roads and more reliable protection, while farmers and schoolchildren in high-risk areas need security structures that can respond before attacks become tragedies.
State assemblies will now face pressure from governors, civil-society organisations, security experts and constituents as they study the amendment. Their votes will determine whether the country proceeds towards the most significant restructuring of Nigerian policing since the return to civilian rule in 1999.
Approval alone, however, would not guarantee success. The quality of the implementing laws and institutions will decide whether state police become a practical answer to insecurity or create new centres of political abuse. Strong civilian oversight, transparent funding and enforceable protections for citizens will be as important as the constitutional change itself.
The ratification stage will also reveal how broad the national consensus really is. Governors may support decentralisation in principle, but lawmakers must still examine whether the proposed structure gives citizens enforceable protections, not merely a new layer of authority. Public hearings and publication of the bill’s final text would help voters understand the powers, limits and accountability mechanisms being considered in their name.
Why it matters: The transmission means state police are no longer merely a proposal discussed in Abuja. The reform has reached the stage where state legislators must decide whether Nigeria should fundamentally change who controls policing and how security is delivered.
Reader call to action: Should your state assembly support the bill? Share the safeguards you believe must be written into any state-police system to protect citizens and prevent political misuse.
