State Police: Tinubu’s Next Big Test in Nigeria’s Security Reform
By Matthew Eloyi
For decades, the debate over state police has remained one of the most contentious issues in Nigeria’s constitutional and security discourse. Supporters have argued that policing a country of more than 200 million people from a single command structure is increasingly unrealistic, while opponents have warned that decentralising the police could expose citizens to political intimidation and abuse by state governments.
With the inauguration of the Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has moved the conversation beyond political rhetoric to the practical business of implementation.
The decision marks perhaps the most significant step yet towards restructuring Nigeria’s policing architecture.
Although the National Assembly has passed the Constitution Alteration (State Police) Bill, 2026, constitutional amendments alone cannot make state police operational. The amendment merely creates the legal space for a dual policing structure comprising the Federal Police Service and 36 State Police Services. What remains is the detailed legislation that will determine whether the reform succeeds or becomes another ambitious policy undermined by poor implementation.
That explains why the inauguration of the working group is significant.
Rather than waiting for the constitutional amendment process to be completed before commencing work, the Presidency has opted to prepare the implementation framework simultaneously. It reflects an appreciation that successful reforms require more than constitutional provisions—they demand detailed legal, administrative and operational planning.
President Tinubu’s insistence that the National Policing Bill should be “implementation-ready” immediately after the constitutional amendment is concluded demonstrates an understanding of one of Nigeria’s recurring governance weaknesses: delays between policy approval and execution.
The composition of the committee also reflects the complexity of the assignment.
Headed by the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, the panel brings together the Attorney-General of the Federation, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), the National Security Adviser, the Inspector-General of Police and representatives of state governments.
The inclusion of these stakeholders acknowledges that policing is not merely a security issue. It is equally a constitutional, legal, financial and governance challenge.
One of the most reassuring aspects of the proposed National Policing Bill is the Presidency’s recognition that decentralisation without safeguards could create new problems.
According to the President, the legislation will address minimum policing standards, state readiness certification, federal-state coordination, accountability mechanisms, fiscal conditions and human rights protections.
These provisions go directly to the heart of concerns that have historically fuelled opposition to state police.
Critics have long argued that governors, who already wield considerable political influence, could weaponise state police against political opponents, journalists, activists or opposition parties.
Those fears are not entirely unfounded.
Nigeria’s political history contains numerous examples of elected officials using public institutions for partisan purposes. Without robust legal checks, independent oversight and operational autonomy, decentralised policing could simply relocate existing challenges from Abuja to the states.
That concern was echoed by the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe, who warned against creating “a monster.”
His intervention underscores the importance of ensuring that accountability is not sacrificed in the pursuit of local policing.
The legislation must therefore define clearly the relationship between governors and state police commissioners, establish transparent appointment and removal procedures, guarantee operational independence in criminal investigations and provide independent complaint mechanisms accessible to citizens.
Funding also presents another major challenge.
While many states have expressed enthusiasm for state police, not all possess the same fiscal capacity.
If wealthier states establish well-equipped police services while poorer ones struggle with salaries, logistics and equipment, Nigeria could inadvertently create unequal standards of public security across the federation.
President Tinubu’s proposal to include fiscal conditions and state readiness certification is therefore a prudent safeguard.
Only states that meet defined operational, financial and administrative benchmarks should be allowed to establish their police services.
Governor Dapo Abiodun’s projection that each state could recruit about 6,000 officers—adding nearly 200,000 personnel nationwide—illustrates one of the strongest arguments in favour of decentralised policing.
Nigeria remains significantly under-policed relative to its growing population and expanding security threats.
The country’s security challenges—banditry, terrorism, kidnapping, communal conflicts, farmer-herder clashes and urban crime—have increasingly exposed the limitations of a highly centralised police system.
Community-based policing offers the advantage of local intelligence, cultural familiarity and faster response to security incidents.
Regional security initiatives such as Amotekun have already demonstrated that locally driven security arrangements can complement federal efforts when properly coordinated.
However, state police should not be viewed as a magic solution to Nigeria’s insecurity.
Security failures often stem not only from institutional structure but also from inadequate intelligence, poor funding, weak training, corruption, low personnel welfare, judicial delays and limited prosecution capacity.
Without addressing these broader issues, merely creating additional police organisations may not produce the desired transformation.
Another important issue is coordination.
Criminal activities increasingly transcend state boundaries.
Kidnappers, terrorists and organised criminal networks rarely operate within a single jurisdiction.
The National Policing Bill must therefore establish clear mechanisms for intelligence sharing, joint operations and conflict resolution between federal and state police services.
Jurisdictional rivalry would only weaken national security.
Equally important is public confidence.
State police will only succeed if citizens believe officers are accountable to the law rather than to political office holders.
Strong civilian oversight, legislative scrutiny, independent police complaints commissions and transparent disciplinary procedures must therefore become central pillars of the new policing architecture.
Perhaps the greatest significance of the President’s initiative lies in what it represents politically.
For years, successive administrations acknowledged the need to reform Nigeria’s policing structure but hesitated over implementation.
By setting up the working group before the constitutional amendment process concludes, the Tinubu administration appears determined to avoid bureaucratic delays and sustain reform momentum.
Whether that ambition ultimately succeeds will depend not only on the quality of the National Policing Bill but also on the political will to implement its safeguards faithfully.
Nigeria may be on the threshold of its most far-reaching policing reform since independence. The challenge now is to ensure that decentralisation delivers safer communities without weakening constitutional protections or democratic accountability.
If the balance is achieved, state police could become one of the defining governance reforms of the Tinubu administration. If not, the country risks replacing one imperfect policing model with thirty-six new ones.
