By David Onwuchekwa
Nigeria is facing one of the most difficult security situations in its history.
From insurgency in the North-East, banditry and mass kidnappings in the North-West, farmer-herder clashes in the North-Central, separatist-related violence in the South-East, to cultism and armed robbery in parts of the South-South and South-West, the current centralized policing structure has struggled to effectively respond to these diverse threats.
The growing call for state police is therefore not merely a political debate; it is increasingly becoming a national security necessity.
One of the strongest arguments for state police is local knowledge. Security challenges differ from one state to another. Criminals often exploit their understanding of local terrain, language, culture and community networks.
A police force recruited and managed at the state level would possess deeper local intelligence, making it easier to detect and prevent crimes before they escalate.
Supporters argue that officers who understand their communities can respond more quickly and effectively than a centralized command structure operating from Abuja.
Another challenge is the current command arrangement. Governors are constitutionally regarded as Chief Security Officers of their states, yet they do not have direct operational control over police commissioners. This often creates delays in responding to emergencies and leaves state governments dependent on federal approval before critical security decisions can be implemented.
State police would bridge this gap by giving state authorities greater responsibility and accountability for security within their territories.
Recent developments suggest that the idea is gaining momentum. The National Assembly has advanced constitutional reforms to allow states establish their own police forces, while the Inspector-General of Police has submitted a framework outlining how federal and state policing could coexist.
These moves reflect a growing recognition that Nigeria’s security challenges require new approaches beyond the existing centralized system.
However, creating state police is not a magic solution. Critics raise legitimate concerns about possible abuse by governors, political intimidation of opponents, election manipulation and the use of state police as personal instruments of power.
Nigeria’s history during the First Republic provides examples of how regional security structures were sometimes used for political purposes. These fears cannot be dismissed.
Funding is another major concern. While states like Lagos, Rivers and a few others may have the resources to maintain professional police services, many states depend heavily on federal allocations and already struggle to pay salaries. A poorly funded state police system could worsen security rather than improve it.
Experts have warned that wealthier states could develop effective police services while poorer states fall behind, creating unequal security standards across the federation.
The way forward is not simply to establish state police, but to build strong safeguards around it. There should be constitutional provisions guaranteeing operational independence, oversight by state assemblies and judicial institutions, federal policing standards, transparent recruitment processes, and mechanisms to prevent political interference.
Without such safeguards, decentralization could merely transfer existing problems from Abuja to the states.
Nigeria’s worsening insecurity situation has exposed the limitations of a purely centralized policing system. State police offers an opportunity to bring security closer to the people, improve intelligence gathering, and enable faster responses to local threats.
Yet its success will depend on strong institutions, adequate funding, and robust checks against abuse. The debate should therefore not be whether Nigeria needs state police, but how to establish a system that strengthens security while protecting democracy and citizens’ rights.
