Segun Atanda/
Fresh arguments for and against the establishment of state police have emerged following President Bola Tinubu’s renewed commitment to decentralising Nigeria’s policing system, a move that has reignited one of the country’s most contentious security debates.
Tinubu reaffirmed his support for state police during a recent All Progressives Congress National Caucus meeting in Abuja on December 19, where he told party leaders that the reform was no longer a distant idea but an imminent policy direction.
He linked the proposal to ongoing constitutional amendment efforts at the National Assembly and broader plans to strengthen security, including arming forest rangers to confront bandits and terrorist groups.
The President’s comments prompted strong reactions from policy experts and historians, reflecting deep divisions over whether state police would stabilise or further strain Nigeria’s fragile security landscape.
Backing Tinubu’s position, Dr Joe Abah, a former Director General of the Bureau of Public Service Reforms, argued that state police was essential for accountability and effective governance.
Reacting to the President’s reaffirmation, Abah said decentralised policing would clarify responsibility for insecurity at the subnational level.
“We have to have armed state police as soon as possible,” Abah wrote on X. “If there is insecurity in a state, we know to hold the governor responsible.”
Proponents of state police have long maintained that Nigeria’s centrally controlled police force is overstretched and poorly positioned to respond to local threats across a vast and diverse federation.
They often cite countries such as the United States and India, where subnational police forces operate alongside federal agencies, as evidence that decentralisation can improve responsiveness and intelligence gathering.
However, critics remain deeply sceptical. Historian Dr Max Siollun warned that Tinubu’s proposal, if poorly implemented, could revive dangerous precedents from Nigeria’s past.
Responding to the renewed push, Siollun cautioned that state police could be captured by political interests and used as instruments of coercion.
“I fear that state police would become 36 new local militias under the control of governors and would cause a second civil war,” he said.
“The last time Nigeria regionalised the security forces, the country descended into civil war a few months later.”
Opponents argue that Nigeria’s history of ethnic tension, weak institutions and political intolerance makes the risk of abuse particularly high, raising concerns that state police could be deployed against opponents rather than criminals.
Supporters counter that the absence of reform has allowed insecurity to fester, pointing to the proliferation of armed groups and criminal networks operating beyond the effective reach of federal forces. They argue that strong legal safeguards and federal oversight could mitigate the risks highlighted by critics.
As bills proposing constitutional changes progress through the National Assembly, Tinubu’s reaffirmation has ensured that state police will remain at the centre of national debate.
0Related posts:
Policing The Nigerian Federation: Integrating Community Policing In Nigerian Security Architecture
Internal Security Dynamics and the Imperative of a New Policing Thought in Nigeria
Interrogating Two Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Under President Tinubu
Lagos Police Kick-Off Community Policing …Set up Structures
New Police Coming
Solomon Arase and the Rebirth of Nigeria Police