The debate over the creation of state police in Nigeria has intensified amid rising insecurity and concerns over the efficiency of the centralized policing system. Legal experts say the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) raises serious questions about the feasibility and potential risks of state-controlled police forces.
Constitutional prohibition of multiple police forces
Section 214(1) of the Constitution states: “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 prohibits the creation of any police force outside the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). Experts note that establishing state police would require a major constitutional amendment, a process that could create legal uncertainty and varying interpretations of policing powers across states.
Centralized control of the police
Under Section 215(1), the NPF is under the command of the Inspector-General of Police, who is appointed by the President. Section 215(4) allows state governors to issue lawful directives to the Commissioner of Police in their states, but such directives remain subject to presidential authority.
The current system is designed to prevent governors from exercising unchecked control over armed security forces. Legal analysts warn that granting states their own police could weaken this safeguard and increase the risk of abuse of power.
Risk of political interference
Governors are sometimes referred to as “chief security officers” of their states, though this is not constitutionally recognized. Analysts warn that state police could be used to intimidate political opponents, suppress protests, or manipulate elections, raising concerns about threats to democracy and the rule of law.
Federal control over policing
Policing is included in the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution (Item 45, Part I, Second Schedule), giving the federal government sole authority to legislate on policing matters. Introducing state police would require removing policing from the Exclusive List, which could weaken federal authority and create conflicting security laws, undermining national coordination.
Weak state oversight
The federal police system includes oversight bodies such as the Police Service Commission and the National Assembly. Most states, however, lack independent institutions to regulate a state-controlled police force. Experts warn that this could increase risks of corruption, human rights violations, and denial of justice.
Potential threat to human rights
Chapter IV of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to life, personal liberty, and fair hearing. Analysts note that state police forces loyal to governors could compromise these rights, particularly if state authorities are involved in violations.
Financial and structural challenges
Establishing state police would require significant funding for recruitment, training, arms, and logistics. Poorer states could face difficulties in maintaining operational standards, paying salaries, or preventing the emergence of militias, potentially worsening insecurity and regional inequalities.
Conclusion
While insecurity has prompted calls for state police, the Constitution centralizes policing to prevent political abuse, protect national unity, and safeguard citizens’ rights. Experts caution that without major constitutional reforms, strong institutions, and oversight mechanisms, state police could increase authoritarian practices, human rights abuses, and instability.
Yusha’u Sani Yankuzo, Executive Director, Centre for Human Rights and Social Advancement (CEFSAN)
