Insecurity: As Barau Drives Constitutional Push for State Police…

As the nation continues to face security challenges, momentum for state policing gathers force. Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Jibrin Barau’s recent engagement with the police reform committee signals a decisive legislative phase. Yet, balancing decentralisation with accountability remains the core challenge shaping Nigeria’s most consequential security reform debate in decades. Sunday Aborisade reports.

Nigeria stands at a defining moment in its long-running search for an effective security architecture. From insurgency in the North-east to banditry in the North-west, kidnapping in the North-central and separatist tensions in the South-east, the country’s overstretched policing system has increasingly come under scrutiny. Against this backdrop, the renewed push for state police has moved from political rhetoric to concrete legislative action.

At the centre of this evolving discourse is the Deputy President of the Senate, Jibrin Barau,  whose recent engagement with a high-level police committee underscores the urgency and complexity of the proposed reform.

When Barau received members of the Nigeria Police Force steering committee tasked with developing a framework for state policing, it was more than a routine courtesy call. It represented a strategic convergence of legislative intent and executive initiative.

The committee, inaugurated by the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, is mandated to design a workable structure for decentralised policing, one that aligns with Nigeria’s constitutional realities while addressing local security needs.

Led by Professor Olu Ogunsakin, the committee’s assignment is both technical and political: to craft a system that enhances security without undermining national unity or enabling abuse by subnational actors.

Barau’s response during the meeting was telling. While expressing support for the initiative, he emphasised accountability, public trust, and the need to address citizens’ fears, which are issues that have long dogged the state police debate.

His position reflects a broader legislative awareness: that without strong safeguards, decentralised policing could replicate the very problems it seeks to solve.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitution Review, Barau occupies a pivotal role in translating the idea of state police into law. The constitutional amendment process currently underway provides the formal pathway for restructuring Nigeria’s policing system.

One of the key proposals before the National Assembly seeks to establish both state and community police within a clearly defined legal framework. This would fundamentally alter the current centralised model, where the Nigeria Police Force operates as a single national entity.

The Senate has already demonstrated its appetite for reform. In December 2025, lawmakers adopted far-reaching recommendations from a national security summit, endorsing state police, intelligence-led operations, and technology-driven surveillance as critical tools for combating insecurity.

These resolutions reflect a growing consensus that Nigeria’s security challenges are too complex for a one-size-fits-all approach.

The argument for decentralised policing is rooted in practicality. Nigeria’s vast geography, diverse population, and varied security threats make centralised command increasingly inefficient.

Security experts argue that local police forces would be better positioned to gather intelligence, respond swiftly to threats, and build trust within communities. In rural areas, where federal presence is often minimal, state police could fill critical gaps.

Moreover, the recognition of governors as “chief security officers” of their states, without corresponding control over police forces, has long been seen as a structural contradiction.

The push for reform has also gained political backing. In 2024, all 36 state Houses of Assembly endorsed the creation of state police, urging the National Assembly to prioritise it in the constitutional review process.

This rare unanimity across states underscores the depth of concern about Nigeria’s security situation.

Despite widespread support, opposition to state police remains significant, and not without reason.

Critics fear that governors could weaponise state police against political opponents, turning law enforcement into an instrument of repression. Nigeria’s history of political interference in security agencies lends weight to these concerns.

Barau himself acknowledged these fears, noting that Nigerians raised them during zonal public hearings conducted by the Senate across the six geo-political zones.

Addressing this trust deficit is central to the success of any state policing framework.

The proposed constitutional amendment attempts to mitigate these risks through a layered oversight system.

It includes the establishment of a National Police Service Commission and State Police Service Commissions, designed to regulate recruitment, discipline, and operations.

Additionally, provisions for bi-annual certification of state police activities aim to ensure compliance with national standards.

Yet, whether these safeguards will be sufficient remains an open question.

Beyond structural reforms, the Senate’s recommendations highlight the importance of modernising Nigeria’s security apparatus.

The shift towards intelligence-driven policing marks a departure from the reactive approach that has characterised the system for decades.

Lawmakers have called for massive investment in surveillance technologies, including drones, CCTV systems, and border sensors.

Such tools, combined with decentralised policing, could significantly enhance early warning systems and rapid response capabilities.

However, implementing these measures will require substantial funding, technical expertise, and inter-agency coordination, being areas where Nigeria has historically struggled.

The debate on state police also intersects with broader socio-economic issues.

The Senate’s security report identified unemployment, poverty, drug abuse, and illiteracy as key drivers of insecurity.

It proposed the creation of a National Youth Stabilisation Fund to address these root causes, particularly in conflict-affected areas.

This holistic approach suggests that policing reforms alone will not suffice.

Without addressing underlying grievances, even the most sophisticated security architecture may fall short.

At its core, the state police debate is a test of Nigeria’s federalism. It raises fundamental questions about the distribution of power between the federal and state governments.

Proponents argue that true federalism requires decentralised security structures. Opponents warn that weakening federal control could threaten national cohesion.

The proposed framework attempts to strike a balance: granting operational autonomy to states while maintaining federal oversight.

For instance, while governors may appoint state commissioners of police, such appointments would require approval from national bodies and state legislatures.

Similarly, federal institutions would retain authority over national security matters.

This hybrid model reflects an effort to reconcile competing interests in a deeply divided polity.

One notable aspect of the current reform process is its emphasis on inclusivity. The Senate’s zonal public hearings allowed stakeholders—from traditional rulers to civil society groups—to contribute to the debate.

This participatory approach is crucial for building legitimacy and public trust.

Barau’s insistence on public enlightenment further underscores the importance of communication. For many Nigerians, the concept of state police remains abstract, shaped more by fears than by facts.

Bridging this knowledge gap will be essential for securing widespread support.

As the committee led by Ogunsakin works towards delivering its report, expectations are high. Its recommendations will likely influence the final shape of the constitutional amendment.

For Barau and his colleagues in the National Assembly, the challenge lies in translating these proposals into a coherent and effective legal framework.

The stakes could not be higher. Nigeria’s security crisis has reached a point where incremental changes may no longer suffice.

State police, once a contentious idea, is now at the forefront of national policy. But its success will depend on careful design, robust oversight, and sustained political will.

The engagement between Barau and the police committee symbolises a broader shift in Nigeria’s approach to security. It reflects a growing recognition that the status quo is untenable.

Yet, as the country moves closer to adopting state police, it must confront difficult questions about power, accountability, and trust.

Will decentralisation bring security closer to the people or merely relocate existing problems? Can safeguards prevent abuse in a highly politicised environment? And will the reform address the root causes of insecurity or merely its symptoms?

These questions will shape not only the future of policing but also the trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy.

For now, the message from the Senate leadership is clear: the concerns of Nigerians will be addressed. Whether that promise translates into lasting security remains to be seen.