The proposed amendment seeks to decentralise policing by establishing state-controlled police services to operate alongside the existing federal structure
KaNo —
Nigeria has moved significantly closer to overhauling its policing architecture following the passage of the long-debated State Police Constitution Alteration Bill by the Senate, marking a pivotal moment in the country’s democratic and security evolution.
The landmark legislation, approved on Wednesday after securing the constitutionally required two-thirds majority, now shifts attention to the 36 state Houses of Assembly.
For the amendment to become law, at least 24 state legislatures must endorse the proposal, setting the stage for what could be a defining phase in Nigeria’s governance reforms.
The Senate’s approval represents a major breakthrough in a conversation that has dominated Nigeria’s security discourse for decades.
The renewed urgency behind the bill is largely driven by worsening insecurity across the country, including persistent threats of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal clashes, and organised criminal activities.
The bill was passed following a manual voting process after technical glitches disrupted the Senate’s electronic voting system.
Despite the setback, lawmakers proceeded with the vote, reflecting the strong political will backing the reform.
With both chambers of the National Assembly now in agreement, the focus has shifted to the state assemblies, whose decisions will ultimately determine whether the proposed decentralised policing framework becomes a reality.
Observers widely regard the amendment as one of the most consequential constitutional reforms since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999.
At the core of the legislation is a provision granting state governors the authority to appoint Commissioners of Police for their respective states, subject to confirmation by the state Houses of Assembly.
This marks a significant shift from the current system, where police leadership is centrally controlled by the federal government.
According to Clause 17 of the proposed amendment, while the Federal Police Service will continue to be headed by the Inspector-General of Police, each state police formation will be led by a Commissioner of Police appointed at the state level.
This effectively introduces a dual policing structure in which federal and state police operate concurrently, each with clearly defined responsibilities.
The Senate approved the bill after considering the report of its Committee on the Review of the Constitution, chaired by the Deputy Senate President, Barau Jibrin.
Lawmakers first examined the provisions at the Committee of the Whole before adopting them for final passage.
Leading debate on the bill, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele described the proposal as a carefully balanced framework designed to enhance local security management while preserving national unity.
He explained that the bill allows for the establishment of state police services in states that choose to adopt them, while retaining the Nigeria Police Force for federal responsibilities.
According to him, the framework clearly delineates operational duties between the two levels of policing.
Under the proposal, state police would be responsible for enforcing state laws, maintaining public order, preventing and detecting crimes within their jurisdictions, and protecting lives and property.
They would also handle other localised security functions tailored to their environments.
In contrast, the federal police would retain jurisdiction over national security matters, including the protection of federal institutions, counter-terrorism operations, cybercrime, border security, arms trafficking, organised crime, and interstate criminal activities.
Bamidele also clarified the conditions under which federal authorities could intervene in state policing matters.
Such intervention, he said, would only occur in exceptional circumstances, including a breakdown of public order, incapacity of state police to function effectively, serious violations of fundamental rights, electoral intimidation, or threats to national security.
He added that any such intervention would require written authorisation from the President and would remain subject to oversight by the Senate and judicial review, ensuring checks and balances within the system.
To address long-standing concerns about potential abuse of state police by governors, lawmakers introduced several safeguards within the amendment.
Critics of decentralised policing have often warned that state-controlled forces could be used to intimidate political opponents, suppress dissent, and manipulate electoral processes.
In response, the Senate included explicit provisions aimed at preventing misuse of power.
One such clause stipulates that a state Commissioner of Police must not arrest, detain, investigate, or deploy force against any individual or group solely for criticising the government, except in accordance with the law.
This provision is expected to serve as a constitutional safeguard against politically motivated actions and abuse of authority.
Additionally, the bill empowers the National Assembly to establish minimum national standards for state police operations.
These standards would cover critical areas such as recruitment, training, vetting, promotion, discipline, use of force, firearms control, complaint procedures, accountability mechanisms, and professional conduct.
Bamidele noted that the overall objective of the bill is to strike a balance between local autonomy and national cohesion, ensuring that decentralised policing does not undermine the unity or stability of the country.
“The framework is designed to promote accountability, operational effectiveness, and respect for constitutional rights, while equipping Nigeria with a modern policing system capable of addressing contemporary security challenges,” he said.
Various administrations, constitutional conferences, and security experts have repeatedly advocated for decentralised policing, citing the limitations of the current centralised system.
Supporters argue that locally recruited officers would possess a deeper understanding of their communities, including language, culture, and terrain, thereby enhancing intelligence gathering and crime prevention.
They also point out that state governments already bear significant financial burdens in supporting federal security agencies, making a case for greater control over local policing.
However, opposition to the idea has persisted, largely due to fears that powerful state executives could misuse the police for political purposes. These concerns have historically stalled efforts to amend the Constitution.
