State police bill passage raises fresh questions over funding, oversight, others

…Experts back structured model, seek Amotekun, Hisbah integration 

The Senate on Wednesday passed a landmark constitutional amendment bill establishing state police services across Nigeria, a major step towards decentralising policing and addressing the country’s growing security challenges.

The development followed the earlier passage of the proposed legislation by the House of Representatives, signalling legislative support for a decentralised policing system.

The legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Provide for the Establishment of State Police and Related Matters (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 (SB.1055),” was approved during plenary presided over by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

The bill introduced a dual policing framework comprising a Federal Police Service and State Police Services.

Under the arrangement, the Federal Police Service will handle federal offences, national security matters, interstate crimes, organised criminal activities and security within the Federal Capital Territory, while state police services will be responsible for local law enforcement, public order, and the protection of lives and property within their states.

It also provides for the establishment of state police commissions and outlines procedures for the appointment, oversight, discipline and removal of police leadership at both federal and state levels. It further empowers the federal government to intervene in state police operations under specific circumstances, including threats to national security or a breakdown of public order.

Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele (APC, Ekiti Central), sponsored the executive-backed proposal on behalf of President Bola Tinubu.

One of the most significant provisions of the bill is contained in Clause 17, which deals with the appointment, command, direction and tenure of police leadership at both federal and state levels.

Under the proposed framework, the Federal Police Service will continue to be headed by the Inspector-General of Police, while each State Police Service will be led by a Commissioner of Police appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State House of Assembly.

The proposed legislation also grants governors powers to issue lawful written directives of a general policy nature to their respective state police commissioners on matters relating to public safety and public order.

Specifically, Section 17(6) provides that: “A governor of a state may give to the Commissioner of Police of that State lawful written directives of a general nature with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the State.”

However, lawmakers included safeguards aimed at preventing political abuse of the proposed state police structure.

Section 17(7) expressly prohibits state police commissioners from arresting, detaining, investigating, prosecuting or deploying force against any individual, political party or group solely for criticising the government except in accordance with the law.

The provision is designed to ensure that state police institutions are not weaponised against political opponents, critics or dissenting voices and that all actions remain subject to due process and constitutional safeguards.

The newly amended Section 214 provides that “there shall be a police service for the Federation to be known as the Federal Police Service” while simultaneously establishing that “there shall be established for each State of the Federation a State Police Service subject to this Constitution and an Act of the National Assembly.”

Yet the bill immediately places significant restrictions on how states may establish police services. According to the legislation, “No State Police Service shall commence operational policing unless it has been established by a Law of the House of Assembly of the State and certified as meeting national minimum standards.”

The implication is that no governor can simply announce the creation of a police force. A state must first enact legislation establishing the service and subsequently obtain certification confirming compliance with nationally prescribed standards before it can commence operations.

The bill further provides that until such certification is obtained, the Federal Police Service shall continue to perform policing functions within the affected state.

Rather than granting governors unilateral powers, the legislation provides that “a State Commissioner of Police shall be appointed by the governor only after recommendation by the National Police Council and confirmation by the State House of Assembly.”

According to the bill, a commissioner “shall not be suspended or removed except for stated cause, in accordance with a fair hearing, on the recommendation of the National Police Council and subject to approval by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all members of the House of Assembly.” In effect, governors cannot hire or fire commissioners at will.

Under Section 214, the Federal Police Service may temporarily intervene in the internal security affairs of a state where there is “an actual or imminent breakdown of public order or public safety which the State Police Service is unable or unwilling to contain.”

The bill was passed after senators resorted to manual voting when electronic voting devices failed to function despite repeated efforts to activate them.  The bill transmitted by President Bola Tinubu, is regarded as one of the most significant security sector reforms in Nigeria’s democratic history.

If assented to by the President, the legislation will provide for the creation of State Police Service Commissions to oversee recruitment, training, and discipline.

The move, however, has triggered a wave of critical questions from citizens, analysts, and stakeholders over its implementation, funding, and broader implications for national security.

Among the key concerns raised is the fate of existing regional and community-based security structures such as Amotekun in the South-West, Ebube Agu in the South-East, and Hisbah in parts of the North-West.

Observers are questioning whether these outfits will be integrated, scrapped, or allowed to operate alongside the proposed state police framework. There are also unresolved issues around recruitment standards and eligibility; who will be qualified to join state police forces, and what safeguards will prevent politicisation of recruitment processes at the subnational level.

Funding remains another major point of debate. Analysts are asking which states have the fiscal capacity to sustain their own police structures amid rising debt profiles and competing developmental priorities.

Linked to this is the question of whether the private sector or new forms of security levies and security taxes will be introduced to fund operations, an issue already generating concern among businesses struggling with multiple operating costs.

Before the passage of the bill, state governors had demanded stronger constitutional backing over security operations in their respective states, alongside guaranteed funding mechanisms, as a condition for effective implementation of the state police framework.

The demands were made during a high-level meeting of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) in Abuja last week, which brought together state Attorneys-General, legal experts, and senior security officials to harmonise positions on the proposed reforms.

The session focused on developing a unified constitutional and institutional structure for State Police Services across the federation, with emphasis on defining operational powers, funding arrangements, personnel management, and oversight mechanisms.

The bill, sponsored by Bamidele, proposes devolving policing powers from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent List, thereby allowing both federal and state governments to exercise policing authority.

Following its passage for second reading on June 11, 2026, Senate President Godswill Akpabio referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Constitution Review, chaired by Barau Jibrin,  deputy Senate President, for further legislative scrutiny and public hearings.

While proponents argue that state policing will improve intelligence gathering and strengthen grassroots security response, critics warn it could become a political tool in the hands of state governors, potentially used to suppress opposition and restrict civil liberties.

Funding concerns 

Meanwhile, the bill does not provide for a dedicated constitutional funding pool for state police. Instead, it clearly places the responsibility for funding on any state government that opts to establish and operate a State Police Service.

The key funding provision is contained in 20B(2), which states that, “A House of Assembly of a State may make laws for the establishment, administration, funding, and oversight of a State Police Service for that State, subject to this Constitution and to any Act of the National Assembly validly made under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.”

Analysis based on internationally recognised policing benchmarks and current cost estimates for police training and operations in Nigeria suggests that a medium-sized state with a population of five million people could require tens of billions of naira annually to establish and sustain a state police force.

Globally, there is no fixed police-to-population ratio. However, the United Nations often cites a benchmark of about 300 police officers per 100,000 residents, equivalent to one officer for every 333 people. Applying this standard to a state with a population of five million would require approximately 15,000 police officers.

Using current estimates, police recruits undergoing training in Nigeria receive monthly allowances ranging from about N10,000 to N45,000, depending on entry level and qualifications.

At the upper estimate of N45,000 monthly over a six-month training period, each recruit would receive N270,000 in allowances. For 15,000 recruits, training stipends alone would amount to about N4.05 billion.

However, experts note that this figure excludes the substantial costs of instructors, training facilities, accommodation, feeding, uniforms, logistics, medical services and administrative support. It also does not cover recruitment screening and certification processes.

Experts say beyond training, states would need to make significant investments in operational infrastructure, including police stations, barracks, communication networks, patrol vehicles, motorcycles, surveillance systems, emergency response centres, command-and-control facilities and digital crime databases.

Expenditure on arms procurement, ammunition, protective gear and equipment maintenance would further increase costs. If the 15,000 officers earn an average monthly salary of N150,000, the annual wage bill alone would reach approximately N27 billion.

Additional obligations such as housing, healthcare, insurance, pensions, hazard allowances, fuel, vehicle maintenance and operational logistics could push the total yearly cost far higher.

Analysts therefore estimate that establishing and effectively running a state police force in a state of five million residents could require well above N50 billion in initial and recurring expenditure, depending on the scale of infrastructure, equipment and welfare packages adopted.

Experts back structured model, seek Amotekun, Hisbah, others’ integration 

Security experts have intensified debate over state police design, risks, and implementation safeguards. While concerns over political abuse persist, retired security chiefs and analysts argue that the success of the reform will depend on clear legal frameworks, coordination structures, and strict operational boundaries.

Adeniyi Shodeinde, retired military officer, said the effectiveness of state police will depend on structured coordination within a unified national security system rather than political interference.

He insisted that constitutional safeguards and inter-agency rules must guide operations to prevent abuse. According to him, fears of politicisation are overstated, noting that Nigeria already has legal mechanisms that allow cross-jurisdiction policing.

“These safeguards already exist within our system,” he said. He cited pursuit of suspects across states and the FCT. He added that election duties should remain restricted to federal agencies under Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) regulations to protect electoral integrity nationwide.

Shehu Sadeeq, a retired Assistant Inspector General of Police, argued that the possibility of abuse should not stop Nigeria from adopting state police, stressing that all human institutions are vulnerable to misuse.

“The issue of abuse, there is no human organisation on earth that cannot be abused if you want to abuse it,” he said. He urged reforms based on institutional evolution rather than fear, adding that even advanced democracies experience imperfections.

Sadeeq proposed a jurisdictional framework separating offences, where state police handle minor crimes while serious offences are escalated to national authorities through clear legal definitions and enforcement boundaries.

Johnson Amen, a retired Commissioner of Police, said groups such as the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF), local hunters and vigilante organisations have repeatedly demonstrated their effectiveness in supporting conventional security agencies across the country.

“What is needed now is to formalise their operations through the establishment of state police. This will give them legal backing, better equipment, proper training and greater motivation to contribute more effectively to security,” he said.

Amen maintained that integrating these community-based security actors into a structured state police system would strengthen intelligence gathering, improve rapid response capabilities and enhance security at the grassroots level.

Salisu Adamu, another retired Commissioner of Police, told BusinessDay that the state police system must be grounded in democratic accountability and constitutional order to avoid replicating centralised failures at subnational levels. He warned that Nigeria’s current policing structure has struggled due to over-centralisation.

“The way our constitutional system is presently structured has created challenges in responding effectively to local security concerns,” he said.

Adamu stressed that intelligence functions should remain centralised under the Department of State Services (DSS) while state police focus on criminal investigations. He also called for improved welfare, training, and equipment for officers to ensure effective service delivery to citizens.

Similarly, Kabiru Adamu, a security consultant, had argued that local policing structures were better equipped to understand and address the unique security challenges within their communities.

He noted that officers recruited from their localities possess deeper knowledge of the terrain, language, culture and social networks, making it easier to identify criminal elements, gather intelligence and prevent attacks before they occur. (BusinessDay)