Yusha’u Sani Yankuzo, Esq
The debate over the establishment of state police in Nigeria has gained momentum amid rising insecurity and perceived inefficiencies in the centralized policing system.
However, beyond policy arguments, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides a critical legal framework that raises serious concerns about the feasibility and risks of state police.
This article examines the negative implications of state police, supported by relevant constitutional provisions.
Constitutional Prohibition of Multiple Police Forces: Section 214(1) of the 1999 Constitution expressly provides that: “There shall be a police force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.”
This provision clearly outlaws the existence of any police force outside the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).
Establishing state police would therefore require a major constitutional amendment, which is difficult to achieve and could open the door to legal uncertainty, abuse, and inconsistent interpretations of policing powers across states.
Centralized Control of the Police: Under Section 215(1), the Nigeria Police Force is under the command of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), who is appointed by the President.
Although Section 215(4) allows state governors to give lawful directives to the Commissioner of Police in their states, such directives are subject to the authority of the President.
This arrangement reflects the Constitution’s intention to prevent governors from exercising absolute control over armed security forces. Granting states their own police could undermine this safeguard and lead to unchecked executive power at the state level.
Risk of Political Abuse by Governors: Governors are often referred to as “chief security officers” of their states, but this title is not expressly stated in the Constitution. Instead, real coercive power remains federally controlled to prevent misuse.
If state police were constitutionally allowed, governors could deploy them to:
- Intimidate political opponents
- Suppress protests and civil dissent
- Manipulate elections.
Given Nigeria’s history of political interference in security agencies, this could seriously threaten democracy and rule of law.
Exclusive Legislative Control Over Policing: Policing falls under the Exclusive Legislative List (Item 45, Part I, Second Schedule) of the Constitution. This means only the Federal Government has the authority to legislate on policing matters.
Allowing state police would require removing policing from the Exclusive List, which could weaken federal authority and create conflicting security laws among states, thereby threatening national coordination and internal security.
Weak Oversight and Accountability at State Level: While the federal police structure includes national oversight bodies such as: the Police Service Commission (Section 153) and the National Assembly, most states lack strong, independent institutions capable of regulating a state-controlled police force.
This raises the risk of corruption, human rights violations and lack of judicial redress for victims. Therefore, decentralizing police powers without equivalent oversight mechanisms could worsen existing abuses.
Threat to Fundamental Human Rights: Chapter IV of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights such as:
Right to life (Section 33)
Right to personal liberty (Section 35)
Right to fair hearing (Section 36)
In a system where state police are loyal to governors, enforcing these rights may become difficult, especially when violations involve state authorities themselves. Victims may face intimidation or denial of justice.
Financial and Structural Inequality Among States: The Constitution provides for fiscal federalism, yet many states rely heavily on federal allocations. Establishing state police would require massive funding for recruitment, training, arms, and logistics.
Poorer states may:
- Operate underfunded police forces
- Fail to pay salaries
- Resort to ethnic or political militias
This could worsen insecurity and inequality across the federation.
Conclusion:
While insecurity has reignited calls for state police, the Nigerian Constitution deliberately centralizes policing to prevent political abuse, protect national unity, and safeguard citizens’ rights.
Without comprehensive constitutional reforms, strong institutions, and effective accountability mechanisms, state police could deepen authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and regional instability.
Any move toward state policing must therefore be cautious, constitutionally sound, and institutionally grounded.
Yankuzo, Esq., is the Executive Director, Centre for Human Rights and Social Advancement (CEFSAN)
