By
Hon Premier Prince Ayowole Odidiomo, Esq.
The proposed constitutional amendment establishing State Police is, without doubt, one of the most significant reforms to Nigeria’s security architecture since the return to democratic governance in 1999. It reflects a deliberate effort to move the country closer to the ideals of true federalism by decentralising policing and bringing law enforcement closer to the communities it serves.
For decades, Nigerians have argued that a single, centrally controlled police force is inadequate for a nation as large, diverse and complex as ours. Security challenges vary from one region to another, and effective
policing often requires local knowledge, faster response times and closer engagement with the people. In that regard, the amendment deserves commendation. It introduces important safeguards by creating both Federal and State Police, granting Governors limited supervisory powers while subjecting key appointments and removals to legislative oversight, protecting citizens against politically motivated arrests, and providing mechanisms for federal intervention only in exceptional circumstances.
These are commendable innovations. They demonstrate that the drafters sought to strike a balance between decentralisation and national cohesion.
However, no constitutional framework is perfect. As promising as this amendment is, several legal, institutional and practical issues remain unresolved. These grey areas deserve careful attention if State Police is to fulfil its intended purpose rather than create new constitutional and administrative challenges.1.
FUNDING DISPARITIES AMONG STATES:
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing State Police is financial sustainability.
Policing is an expensive undertaking. It requires substantial investment in recruitment, training, salaries, welfare, modern equipment, forensic facilities, intelligence gathering, communication systems, vehicles, barracks and insurance.
While financially stronger states such as Lagos, Rivers and Delta may have the capacity to establish well-equipped police services, many other states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations, including the payment of workers’ salaries and pensions.
If left unaddressed, this disparity could result in two different standards of policing across the federation—professional, technologically advanced police services in wealthier states, and poorly funded, undertrained and ineffective forces in poorer ones. Such inequality would undermine the very objective of improving national security.
Future reforms should therefore establish minimum funding standards, create an equalisation or support fund for less affluent states, and require mandatory annual financial audits of every State Police Service.
2. POLITICAL INTERFERENCE REMAINS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN:
One of the strongest criticisms of State Police has always been the possibility of political abuse.
Although the amendment introduces safeguards against arbitrary arrests and politically motivated persecution, Governors will still exercise considerable influence through the appointment of Commissioners of Police and the issuance of lawful operational directives.
Political interference may not always be obvious. It could manifest through selective deployment of officers, indirect influence over investigations, manipulation of promotions and transfers, or restrictions on political rallies under the guise of maintaining public order.
The constitutional safeguards are encouraging, but stronger and more independent oversight mechanisms will still be necessary to preserve public confidence in the neutrality of State Police.
3. INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION:
The amendment allows a Commissioner of Police to challenge any directive from a Governor that is believed to be unlawful by referring the matter to the State Police Service Commission.
This is an important safeguard.
However, its effectiveness depends entirely on the independence of that Commission.
If its members are appointed largely by the Governor, questions will naturally arise about its ability to impartially review disputes involving the same Governor.
A more balanced appointment process should involve representatives of the judiciary, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society organisations, traditional institutions and the State House of Assembly to ensure institutional independence and public trust.
4. JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE POLICE:
The creation of two separate policing systems inevitably raises complex jurisdictional questions.
Who investigates an armed robbery committed across several states?
Who assumes responsibility for cybercrime, terrorism, kidnapping or organised crime that transcends state boundaries?
Which police service takes precedence where both agencies claim jurisdiction over the same matter?
Without comprehensive operational protocols and detailed implementing legislation, overlapping responsibilities may result in duplication, conflict and delays in criminal investigations.
5. LACK OF UNIFORM NATIONAL POLICING STANDARDS:
Although policing will become decentralised, professionalism must remain consistent nationwide.
Different states may adopt varying recruitment standards, training curricula, disciplinary procedures, salary structures and operational philosophies. Such inconsistencies could produce significant disparities in competence and accountability.
There should therefore be constitutionally recognised minimum national standards governing recruitment, training, ethics, operational procedures and certification, while still allowing states reasonable flexibility to address local security needs.
6. HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS REQUIRE STRONGER ENFORCEMENT:
One of the most commendable features of the amendment is its express prohibition against arresting, detaining or harassing individuals merely for criticising the government.
Yet constitutional rights are only meaningful when accompanied by effective enforcement mechanisms.
The amendment does not expressly prescribe penalties for officers who violate these protections, provide compensation mechanisms for victims, or impose personal liability on officials responsible for politically motivated persecution.
Future legislation should strengthen these protections by creating clear sanctions, accessible remedies and effective oversight to ensure accountability.
7. FEDERAL INTERVENTION REQUIRES GREATER CLARITY:
The amendment empowers the Federal Government to intervene where there is a complete breakdown of law and order or at the request of a State Governor.
While such intervention may sometimes be necessary, expressions such as “complete breakdown of law and order” remain undefined.
Without clearer constitutional guidance, future administrations could interpret these provisions differently, potentially leading to constitutional disputes between the Federal Government and the states.
Judicial interpretation will undoubtedly play an important role, but greater legislative precision would reduce uncertainty.
8. COMMUNITY POLICING IS STILL UNDERDEVELOPED:
State Police does not automatically translate into community policing.
The amendment does not expressly provide for community safety structures, neighbourhood policing partnerships, local government policing initiatives or structured collaboration with traditional rulers and local security networks.
Given Nigeria’s diverse social and cultural landscape, grassroots intelligence remains one of the most effective tools for crime prevention. Future legislation should therefore strengthen institutional cooperation between State Police and local communities.
9. RECRUITMENT MUST REMAIN MERIT-BASED:
Professional policing begins with professional recruitment.
The Constitution presently offers limited protection against political patronage in recruitment.
Without transparent recruitment procedures, there is a risk that political loyalty rather than competence could determine who joins the police service.
Independent recruitment boards, competitive examinations, federal accreditation of police training institutions and merit-based promotion systems would significantly strengthen professionalism.
10. INDEPENDENT CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS MECHANISMS ARE STILL ABSENT:
Many democratic jurisdictions operate independent civilian complaints commissions where members of the public can report police misconduct without fear of intimidation.
The proposed amendment does not establish such an institution.
An independent Police Complaints Commission in every state would greatly improve accountability, transparency and public confidence.
11. WELFARE, PENSIONS AND SERVICE CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCERTAIN:
The amendment focuses primarily on institutional structure while paying comparatively little attention to the welfare of police personnel.
Important questions remain unanswered regarding pension portability, transfer between Federal and State Police Services, rank equivalence, harmonisation of service conditions and retirement benefits.
Failure to address these matters may create uncertainty, labour disputes and administrative inefficiencies.
12. INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND NATIONAL COORDINATION:
Modern crime is increasingly sophisticated and often crosses state and national borders.
Effective policing depends on integrated intelligence systems, forensic databases, fingerprint records, DNA repositories, cybersecurity infrastructure and seamless information sharing.
Without strong coordination between Federal and State Police Services, criminals may exploit institutional gaps and jurisdictional boundaries.
13. UNEVEN IMPLEMENTATION ACROSS THE FEDERATION:
The amendment merely empowers states to establish police services; it does not compel them to do so.
Consequently, some states may establish highly professional police institutions almost immediately, while others may delay implementation—or decline altogether—because of financial, political or administrative constraints.
This uneven implementation could produce significant disparities in security across the country unless adequate support mechanisms are introduced.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed constitutional amendment establishing State Police is a bold and commendable step towards strengthening Nigeria’s federal structure and improving internal security. It recognises the limitations of an exclusively centralised policing system and introduces important safeguards aimed at preventing political abuse while promoting greater local accountability.
Nevertheless, constitutional amendments alone cannot guarantee effective policing.
The ultimate success of State Police will depend on the quality of subsequent legislation, sustainable funding arrangements, institutional independence, transparent recruitment, professional training, effective oversight and unwavering respect for the rule of law.
As the amendment progresses through the constitutional process, including ratification by at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly before it can come into force, there remains an invaluable opportunity to refine these grey areas.
If these outstanding issues are thoughtfully addressed, Nigeria will not merely create another police institution. It will lay the foundation for a modern, professional, accountable and community-oriented policing system capable of protecting lives, preserving constitutional freedoms and strengthening democratic governance for generations to come.
*@ Hon Premier Prince Ayowole Odidiomo, Esq.*(Allen Cash)