This article by Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN discusses the need for State Police, saying that it is the completion of Nigeria’s Federal project, citing as examples countries such as America, Canada and India who maintain multi-layered policing structures, that reflect their Federal character
Security, Federalism and the Imperative of Constitutional Evolution
History teaches a simple but profound lesson: when a State struggles to guarantee the safety of its citizens, every other promise of government becomes uncertain. Economic prosperity retreats before insecurity. Education suffers, when children fear going to school. Agriculture declines, when farmers abandon their lands. Investment evaporates, where criminality flourishes. Ultimately, the legitimacy of government itself, is tested by its capacity to secure lives and property.
It is therefore, no coincidence that the framers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), placed security at the heart of governance. Section 14(2)(b) provides in clear and unequivocal terms:
“The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.
This constitutional declaration, is neither ornamental nor aspirational. It is the foundational obligation of the Nigerian State. Every institution of government derives legitimacy, from its capacity to fulfil this sacred constitutional mandate.
Today, however, Nigeria confronts a security reality, vastly different from that contemplated by earlier generations. Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, farmer-herder conflicts, communal violence, organised crime, cybercrime and transnational criminal networks have exposed the limitations of a highly centralised security architecture.
At the centre of this debate lies Section 214(1) of the Constitution, which provides:
“There shall be a police force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force and, subject to the provisions of this section, no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.”
For decades, this provision has maintained an exclusive Federal monopoly over policing. While conceived with the legitimate objective of preserving national unity, experience has demonstrated that a nation of over 200 million people, spread across diverse ethnic, linguistic, geographical and cultural communities, cannot indefinitely rely upon a singular centrally controlled policing structure.
The question before Nigeria today is therefore, not whether security should remain a national responsibility. I firmly believe it must. The question, is whether security can be more effectively achieved through a constitutional framework that combines Federal coordination with local responsiveness.
The growing consensus across the Federation, suggests that the answer lies in the establishment of State Police.
State Police as a Fulfilment of Federalism
The agitation for State Police, is often misunderstood as a call for fragmentation. It is nothing of the sort.
Rather, it is a call for the completion of Nigeria’s Federal project.
Federalism is not merely a constitutional arrangement; it is a philosophy of governance founded upon the principle that, public authority should be exercised at the level closest to the people, except where compelling national interests require otherwise.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the Federal character of the Nigerian constitutional order. In Attorney-General of Ogun State v Attorney-General of the Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 583, the Court emphasised and rightly so, that powers within the Federation are constitutionally distributed between the Federal Government and the States.
Similarly, in Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that neither level of government is intended to be subordinate to the other within its constitutional sphere.
The logic underlying these decisions is unmistakable: Federalism thrives where responsibility follows capacity, and where governance remains responsive to local realities.
Security therefore, is no exception.
A Police officer recruited from, familiar with, and accountable to a local community possesses advantages that no centrally deployed officer can easily replicate. Such an officer understands local languages, customs, terrain, social networks and emerging threats. He is not merely stationed within the community; he is part of it.
Sir Robert Peel, regarded as the father of modern policing, famously observed:
“The Police are the public, and the public are the Police”.
This principle remains as relevant today, as it was in nineteenth-century England. Effective policing depends not merely on force, but on trust, local intelligence and community cooperation.
State Police, it must be emphasised, seeks to institutionalise these principles within the Nigerian Federation.
Comparative Lessons from Successful Federations
Nigeria’s current centralised policing arrangement, is increasingly an anomaly among Federal systems.
The United States operates Federal, State, County and Municipal Police institutions. Canada combines Federal policing with Provincial and local police services. Germany, Australia and India similarly maintain multi-layered policing structures, that reflect their Federal character.
James Madison, one of the principal architects of American federalism, explained in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments, are numerous and indefinite.”
The wisdom behind this principle lies in the recognition that governance becomes more effective when local institutions are empowered to address local challenges.
Nigeria’s security challenges increasingly demand a similar constitutional evolution.
Decentralisation as a Safeguard Against Abuse
Paradoxically, one of the strongest arguments for State Police is not merely efficiency, but liberty. The concentration of coercive power in a single institution, has always troubled constitutional thinkers.
Montesquieu warned:
“Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it”.
Lord Acton later echoed the same concern:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The constitutional response to this danger has never been the elimination of power, but its distribution, regulation and accountability.
State Police, properly constituted and effectively supervised, represents not an expansion of arbitrary power, but a diffusion of authority within a framework of constitutional safeguards.
In truth, Federalism itself is one of humanity’s most successful mechanisms for preventing the excessive concentration of governmental power.
The Proposed Constitutional Framework
The ongoing constitutional amendment process, provides a historic opportunity to modernise Nigeria’s security architecture.
The proposed framework, contemplates the establishment of two constitutionally recognised policing institutions:
1. A Federal Police Service responsible for national security, inter-State crimes, terrorism, border protection and other federal concerns; and
2. State Police Services established by individual States through legislation enacted by their respective Houses of Assembly.
The constitutional amendment process itself guarantees legitimacy. It requires approval by two-thirds of both chambers of the National Assembly, endorsement by at least twenty-four State Houses of Assembly, and presidential assent.
This rigorous procedure ensures that the reform emerges from a broad national consensus rather than partisan expediency.
Following the constitutional amendment, the National Assembly would enact comprehensive legislation establishing minimum national standards concerning recruitment, training, discipline, accountability, operational procedures and respect for human rights.
No State Police Service, I submit should become operational until it demonstrates institutional readiness and compliance with those standards.
The objective must never be merely to create more police agencies. The objective must be to create better policing institutions.
Accountability, Professionalism and Constitutional Safeguards
Critics of State Police frequently raise concerns about abuse by state governments. These concerns are legitimate and deserve serious engagement.
However, the answer to potential abuse is not perpetual centralisation. The answer is robust constitutional safeguards.
The proposed framework provides for oversight by a reconstituted National Police Council comprising representatives of federal and state governments, Attorneys-General, traditional institutions, civil society and relevant professional bodies.
At the state level, independent Police Service Commissions would supervise recruitment, discipline, promotions and personnel administration.
The appointment and removal of senior police officers would be subject to multiple layers of institutional scrutiny, thereby insulating law enforcement from partisan manipulation.
Professor A.V. Dicey’s enduring principle remains instructive:
“No man is above the law.”
Neither governors nor presidents should control police institutions without constitutional restraint.
State Police must therefore be accountable not to political office holders but to the Constitution and the rule of law.
National Security and National Unity
Support for State Police does not imply hostility to federal authority.
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s observations in Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320 remind us that:
“The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right.”
National unity remains paramount.
For this reason, the proposed constitutional framework must wisely preserve federal authority in exceptional circumstances involving terrorism, insurrection, complete breakdown of public order, or situations requiring coordinated national intervention.
The objective is cooperation rather than competition between federal and state institutions.
The relationship should resemble a partnership, not a rivalry.
Learning from History Without Being Imprisoned by It
Opponents of the State Police frequently invoke the abuses associated with regional police during the First Republic.
History should indeed be respected, yet history should not become our prison. The lesson of the First Republic is not that the State Police is inherently dangerous. Rather, it is that policing institutions require constitutional safeguards, independent oversight and democratic accountability.
The Nigeria of 2026 is not the Nigeria of 1960. Our constitutional institutions are now stronger, our democratic culture is deeper, and our understanding of human rights protections is significantly more advanced.
The appropriate response to historical imperfections is institutional improvement, not constitutional stagnation.
President Tinubu’s Historic Opportunity
Great constitutional reforms often emerge when political courage meets historical necessity.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a man who emerged for a structure, a democratic structure and he has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to confront difficult national questions and pursue reforms long considered politically unattainable.
The debate over State Police presents such an opportunity. Future generations must remember this moment, as the point at which Nigeria finally reconciled its security architecture with its federal character.
Just as previous generations confronted constitutional questions relating to fiscal federalism, democratic governance and electoral reforms, our generation must confront the challenge of building a security framework capable of protecting twenty-first century Nigeria.
Conclusion: Completing the Federal Promise
The debate over the State Police, at its core, personally for me, is a debate about the future of the Nigerian federation, an issue I have been closely engaged with since the heyday of my unyielding involvement in Afenifere Renewal Group and as a rights activist.
It is a debate about whether security should remain distant or become responsive; whether governance should remain excessively centralised or become intelligently decentralised; whether constitutional federalism should exist merely in theory, or flourish in practice.
The establishment of State Police, accompanied by strong constitutional safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and national standards, offers a balanced path toward a safer and more effective federation.
This is not a call for division, it is a call for constitutional maturity, it is not a retreat from national unity, as it is an affirmation that unity is strengthened when governance works.
As Abraham Lincoln wisely observed:
“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves”.
The Nigerian people seek security. The Constitution commands the government to provide it. Federalism offers a framework through which it may be more effectively achieved.
The unfinished business of Nigerian federalism now stands before us, and the time has come to complete the promise.
Dr Kayode Ajulo, OON, SAN, Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State