Late last month, during an interfaith breaking of fast at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, President Bola Tinubu let out a plea directed at his guests, primarily members of the Nigerian Senate. “We are facing terrorism, banditry, and insurgency. But we will never fail to make a right response to this cause. What I will ask for tonight is for you to start thinking of how best to amend the constitution to incorporate the state police for us to secure our country, take over our forests from marauders, and free our children from fear….” Stating the obvious and expecting nothing less than a speedy compliance.
It is for decency that one would not tag what transpired between the president and senators as an instruction from someone who has had virtually all his legislative prayers granted without objections of any sort from those whose duty it is to ensure that the first arm of government, with the numerous statutory edges it has over the other two, does not become absolutely self-reporting. No effort is being made here to begrudge President Tinubu what appears to be his unprecedented luck or favour with this set of federal legislators who are wired to always view his intentions – stated or otherwise – as good enough for the country.
Now that Tinubu has publicly appealed to the Senator Godswill Akpabio-led Senate to make state police a constitutional reality, Nigerians who have been canvassing for it can go home, rejoice and sleep with the assurance that it’s a fait accompli. And those who are prone to worries can be concerned about the degree of intellectuality, practicality and pragmatism that’ll be invested in this potentially transformative and definitive legislation, especially in the chamber where the lawmakers will frame it. Politically, the president and his journeymen and women have a lot to gain if states are allowed to legally own and operate the police. They belong to the clan of the political elite who love to be seen as progressives and who have for decades promoted concepts like restructuring, true federalism and fiscal federalism. The idea of state police has always been on that exotic list. But then, all those over-romanticised terms have problems with unambiguous definitions and operationalisations.
It is, therefore, unwise to follow the frenzy and rejoice that a long-sought law is underway. It’s in order, though, for people to be happy about this development. Sustainable security is arguably one area of our national life today that’s a quarter away from total failure. So, any major step towards thinking and acting outside the box or concretising enduring relevant aspirations should be embraced. However, the nation runs the risk of merely pursuing a theoretical posturing or half-baked reform instead of a workable, lasting answer to a protracted existential issue if not properly guided.
As Nigeria attempts to tinker with Section 214 of its constitution which brings all its policing apparatus under one national police force, it must engage the diverse arguments surrounding it. For the record, policing hadn’t always been this centralised. All through its various stages of political history, the country had been policed by agencies that didn’t have to take directives directly or indirectly from the centre. But all that changed in 1966 after the nation’s first military coup. Like many of the nation’s other components, the police fell to the overriding motivation of the adventurers in government which was to “unite” structures under one chain of command and control. Thus, police in Nigeria became a colossus watching over everyone via the stroke of the Forces Acts (Amendment) Decree of 1966.
And now, precisely six decades after, a major surgery is being prepared to alter that arrangement. Whoever thinks we should maintain the status quo is either an unshakable or a deluded optimist. For, nothing exemplifies our dire need of security more than the current numbing of national consciousness to news of abductions, violence, bloodshed, and unconscionable, multiple and mass murders. Without external aggression and wars, this country has in recent times lost more of its citizens to crimes and criminalities that border of inept or disabled policing than any other causes in its existence.
And those who uphold the centralisation of the police do so for two main reasons. One, the fear that state governors would hijack this critical pillar of nationhood to pursue their own parochial interests. Two, the inability of most states to rise to the challenge of owning the police due to material, monetary and institutional constraints, a situation that can inexorably result in costly social disequilibrium around the country with the attendant grave consequences. These and more apprehensions expressed over the years can’t easily be discountenanced. But, curiously, the premises for their own rebuttal are inbuilt.
At the moment, governors in Nigeria are, without doubt, the undisputed principalities of their individual domains, sorry, states. In virtually all the states, the legislatures are firmly in their pockets. The judiciaries don’t fare better, sadly. Letting the chief executives have and hold their own instruments of coercion and law enforcement could be all that we need to further undermine our sovereignty and internal cohesion. Think of trying to cope with self-asserting despots all over the place. But then, successive presidents have also been accused of using the police to suppress dissenting voices and interests.
Lack of adequate resources in some states shouldn’t also be a prime concern. Many state governments have already established some forms of policing entities, anyway. South West formed “Amotekun” in 2020. Kano has “Hisbah” to implement Shariah law. Benue launched Civil Protection Guards in 2024. Zamfara had done so earlier that year when it instituted Community Protection Guards. And others. Even now, most governors donate heavily to the police to enhance their capacities.
Somehow, I wish the president’s request had come earlier than it did, considering the present reality which prioritises the political survival of the legislators over critical assignments like this proposed amendment. Fundamental to the matter at hand are: lines between federal and state policing responsibilities, areas of collaboration, maintenance of standards, consistent monitoring and more. The argument that state police will bring law administration closer to the people to ensure adequate, rapid response isn’t completely unimpeachable. In a nation where citizenship is still vulnerable to the indigene/settler dichotomy, state police can degenerate to tools for entrenching ethnic and religious biases.
Surely, decentralised policing isn’t perfect anywhere. Not in Brazil where the state-level military police sometimes fall short of set rules. Not in India where central paramilitary formations work with state police. Not even in the United States where thousands of local security agencies collaborate with their federal counterparts. But they keep pushing forward against the odds. The least we can do now is move towards change, having stood on the same spot for too long with clear waning chances of winning.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Ekpe, PhD, is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board
X: @monday_ekpe2
