State Police: Inside Historic Bill to Reshape Policing in Nigeria

Nigeria moved a significant step closer to one of the most far-reaching security reforms in its democratic history on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, as the Senate approved a constitutional amendment bill seeking to establish state police and local government police services alongside the existing Nigeria Police Force, writes Sunday Ehigiator

For more than two decades, Nigeria’s security challenges have continued to outpace the capacity of its highly centralised policing system. From terrorism in the North-East and banditry in the North-West to kidnapping, cultism, communal clashes, separatist agitations and urban crime, the burden on the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has grown exponentially.

Yet despite these mounting challenges, policing remains one of the most centralised functions of government under the 1999 Constitution. But that may soon change.

The recent passage by the Senate of a Constitution Alteration Bill seeking to establish State Police and related policing institutions marks one of the most ambitious attempts to restructure Nigeria’s security architecture since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999.

Far from being a simple proposal to create state-controlled police formations, the bill seeks a sweeping overhaul of policing in Nigeria, introducing a multi-tier security system that includes federal, state and local government police services, alongside new oversight bodies, recruitment mechanisms, accountability structures and constitutional safeguards.

If eventually enacted, the legislation could fundamentally alter how security is managed in Africa’s most populous nation. More importantly, it could redefine the balance of power between Abuja and the states.

What the Bill Actually Seeks to Do

Public discussion around the legislation has largely focused on the phrase ‘state police.’ However, a close examination of the bill reveals that it goes much further.

The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to replace Nigeria’s current single-force policing arrangement with a layered security framework operating at multiple levels of government. Under the proposal, policing would no longer be the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. Instead, Nigeria would operate a policing structure comprising: The Nigeria Police Force, State Police Services, and the Local Government Police Services.

This is arguably the most radical security reform contemplated since independence. The significance lies not merely in the creation of additional police institutions, but in the constitutional recognition that security challenges are often local and may require local solutions.

Supporters argue that the existing system has become overstretched and disconnected from the realities of communities experiencing insecurity. The bill attempts to address that gap by moving policing closer to the people.

Altering Section 214

One of the most consequential provisions of the bill is the proposed amendment to Section 214 of the Constitution.

At present, Section 214 establishes only one police institution for the federation: the Nigeria Police Force. The bill proposes a new constitutional framework that recognises both the Nigeria Police Force and the State Police Services.

This amendment is significant because it removes the constitutional monopoly currently enjoyed by the federal police.

For decades, advocates of restructuring have argued that Nigeria’s federal arrangement is incomplete because states exercise responsibility for education, health, transportation and economic development but possess virtually no authority over policing.

Governors are often described as chief security officers of their states, yet they have no operational command over police personnel deployed within their territories. The proposed amendment seeks to bridge that contradiction. By allowing states to establish and manage their own police services, the bill aligns security responsibilities with political accountability.

In practical terms, governors who are held accountable by citizens for insecurity would finally possess constitutional authority to create policing institutions designed to address local threats.

The Birth of State Police Services

The centrepiece of the bill is the establishment of State Police Services. Under the proposed arrangement, states would have the constitutional authority to establish police organisations responsible for maintaining law and order within their jurisdictions.

These police services would undertake traditional law enforcement responsibilities, including crime prevention, crime detection, public safety, intelligence gathering and community policing.

The rationale behind the proposal is straightforward. Supporters argue that officers recruited from local communities are often better equipped to understand the environment in which they operate. They know the terrain. They understand local customs. They speak local languages, and they possess social and cultural knowledge that can significantly improve intelligence gathering and crime prevention.

The expectation is that state police would respond more quickly to security threats and build stronger trust with local communities than a centrally controlled force.

The Surprise Provision: Local Government Police Services

Perhaps the most unexpected aspect of the bill is its proposal for Local Government Police Services.

While public debate has largely focused on federal and state policing, the bill introduces a third layer of law enforcement at the grassroots level. If enacted, local governments would be empowered to establish police services designed to address community-level security concerns.

This provision reflects the growing recognition that many security threats originate at the local level and require rapid intervention.

Advocates argue that local government police could improve grassroots intelligence gathering and strengthen community engagement. They believe local officers would be more familiar with residents, local disputes and emerging threats.

However, critics have expressed concern about the possibility of overlapping responsibilities among federal, state and local police institutions. Questions have also been raised about funding, coordination and operational efficiency.

Nevertheless, the inclusion of local government police demonstrates the extent to which the bill seeks to decentralise security governance.

National Police Council Retained

Despite introducing state and local policing structures, the bill does not dismantle federal oversight. The National Police Council remains an integral component of the proposed architecture.

The Council would continue to serve as a coordinating body responsible for national policing policies and strategic direction. Its retention reflects an effort to strike a balance between decentralisation and national cohesion. The architects of the bill appear mindful of concerns that excessive fragmentation could weaken national security coordination. By preserving the National Police Council, the bill seeks to ensure that multiple policing institutions can operate within a coherent national framework.

State Police Councils: The New Centres of Oversight

A major concern among critics of state police has always been the possibility of political abuse. Many fear governors could use police forces as instruments of intimidation against political opponents, journalists, activists and civil society groups.

The bill attempts to address those fears through the establishment of State Police Councils. These councils would serve as oversight institutions responsible for supervising state police services. Their duties include policy formulation, strategic direction, administrative supervision and performance monitoring.

The significance of these councils cannot be overstated. Rather than concentrating authority solely in the hands of governors, the bill creates institutional structures designed to provide checks and balances.

Whether these safeguards will prove sufficient remains a subject of debate, but their inclusion reflects a deliberate effort to address longstanding concerns about accountability.

State Police Service Commissions

The proposed State Police Bill seeks to address concerns about political interference by creating a broad-based State Police Service Commission to oversee appointments, promotions and disciplinary matters within the State Police.

Under the bill, the commission would be headed by a chairman appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State House of Assembly. It would also include two representatives of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), who must be indigenes of the state, and a representative of the Public Complaints Commission (PCC).

Other members of the commission would include a representative of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), three retired Assistant Commissioners of Police or officers of equivalent rank drawn from the state’s three senatorial districts, and a representative of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) from the state.

The commission would also have a representative of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the chairman of the State Traditional Rulers’ Council or his representative.

The commission would be responsible for recommending candidates for appointment as Commissioner of State Police, overseeing promotions and disciplinary measures, and managing personnel matters within the force.

By bringing together representatives from human rights bodies, labour unions, the legal profession, the media, traditional institutions and retired police officers, the bill seeks to ensure that the administration of state police is subject to professional and civilian oversight rather than being controlled solely by political office holders.

Recruitment and Local Ownership

One of the strongest arguments in favour of state police relates to recruitment. The bill envisages structured recruitment systems governed by established standards. Local recruitment offers several potential advantages.

Police officers drawn from local communities are often better positioned to identify criminal networks, understand community dynamics and detect unusual activities.

In rural communities where trust plays a crucial role in intelligence gathering, local knowledge can make the difference between preventing crime and merely reacting to it. Supporters believe state police could therefore strengthen intelligence-led policing and reduce dependence on reactive law enforcement.

The emphasis on local ownership reflects global trends in community policing, which increasingly prioritise partnership between security agencies and the communities they serve.

National Standards and Uniformity

The bill seeks to ensure that the creation of state police does not result in widely different policing standards across the country by establishing a framework for national standards and uniformity.

While states would have the power to establish and manage their own police services, they would still be required to comply with nationally prescribed minimum standards covering recruitment, training, certification, inspections, operational procedures, accountability mechanisms and the use of firearms.

A key provision of the bill is that state laws establishing police services must not fall below these national benchmarks. States are free to adopt higher standards if they choose, but they cannot operate below the minimum requirements set at the national level.

This was designed to prevent situations where some states establish poorly trained or inadequately regulated police forces that could undermine public safety or human rights.

The objective is to strike a balance between decentralisation and national cohesion. While policing would be brought closer to the people through state and local police services, the federal framework would continue to provide uniform professional standards and oversight.

Supporters say this approach allows states to tailor security responses to local realities without compromising professionalism, accountability and operational consistency across the federation.

Funding Architecture

The proposed State Police Bill recognises that creating and sustaining new police institutions will require substantial financial resources and therefore places significant funding responsibilities on states and local governments.

Although the bill decentralises policing, it makes it clear that any state seeking to establish a police service must be prepared to finance its operations, including personnel costs, training, equipment, vehicles, communications systems, intelligence gathering and welfare packages. This provision is aimed at ensuring that states do not create police forces they cannot adequately maintain.

To support the new policing structure, the bill also provides for grants and other funding mechanisms within the broader framework of national standards and oversight.

However, the responsibility for day-to-day financing rests largely with the state governments and, where applicable, local government authorities. This raises important questions about the varying financial capacities of states, as wealthier states may be able to build better-equipped and more technologically advanced police services than less affluent ones.

The funding architecture has emerged as one of the most debated aspects of the bill. Supporters argue that states already spend significant amounts on security interventions and should therefore have the authority to direct those resources through their own police institutions.

Critics, however, warn that disparities in state revenues could lead to unequal policing standards across the country. The bill attempts to address this concern by retaining national standards and oversight mechanisms, but the long-term success of state police may ultimately depend on whether states can provide sustainable funding while maintaining professionalism, training and operational effectiveness.

Federal Intervention and National Security

The proposed State Police Bill decentralises policing but does not completely remove the federal government’s authority over national security. Recognising that certain threats such as terrorism, insurgency, organised crime, arms trafficking and other cross-border offences extend beyond the capacity or jurisdiction of individual states, the bill preserves the role of the federal government and the Nigeria Police Force in safeguarding national security and maintaining coordination across the federation.

To prevent the fragmentation of law enforcement, the bill provides for national oversight mechanisms and continued federal involvement in policing matters of national importance.

State police services would be required to operate within nationally prescribed standards, while federal institutions would retain powers to coordinate security operations, facilitate inter-state cooperation and intervene in situations where public order, constitutional governance or national security are under serious threat.

Looking Ahead

Ultimately, the State Police Bill is about much more than policing. It is a referendum on the nature of Nigerian federalism. The proposal challenges the concentration of power at the centre and seeks to transfer significant authority to states and local governments.

For supporters, this represents a long-overdue correction to structural imbalances within the federation. For critics, it raises concerns about accountability, coordination and the potential for political misuse. Yet both sides agree on one point: Nigeria’s worsening security challenges demand fresh thinking and new approaches to law enforcement.

The Senate’s approval of the bill has transformed state police from a theoretical conversation into a practical constitutional project. However, the proposal has not yet crossed the finish line. As a constitutional amendment, it must now secure the endorsement of at least 24 of Nigeria’s 36 state Houses of Assembly before it can proceed for presidential assent.

The next phase of the debate will therefore shift from the National Assembly to state legislatures, where lawmakers will determine whether the country is prepared to embrace one of the most significant security reforms in its history.

Whether it ultimately becomes law or not, the legislation has already reshaped the national conversation on security, governance and federalism. The coming months will reveal whether sufficient political consensus exists across the federation to support the far-reaching changes proposed in the bill.

Should it clear the remaining constitutional hurdles, future historians may look back on this moment as the point at which Nigeria fundamentally reimagined how security is organised, managed and delivered across the federation, especially as it truly addresses the country’s current security concerns.