TUNDE OYESINA writes that amidst rising insecurity, lawyers have queried the rationale behind the 60-month timeline proposed by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) for the creation of state police in the country
The renewed debate over the creation of state police in Nigeria has taken a new dimension following a proposal by the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, proposing that the establishment of state police should be implemented through a phased process spanning 60 months. The proposal has however sparked intense debate with lawyers expressing concern about the implications of such a prolonged timeline on Nigeria’s already fragile security architecture.
The legal practitioners believed that delaying implementation for five years may undermine urgent efforts to address worsening insecurity across the country. Nigeria currently operates a centralised policing system, with the Nigeria Police Force under the authority of the federal government.
However, the growing complexity of security challenges from banditry and kidnapping to communal violence has reignited calls for a decentralised policing model that allows states to establish and manage their own police structures. For years, advocates of state policing have argued that the current structure is overstretched and insufficiently responsive to local security realities.
They contended that decentralising policing powers would enable faster responses to security threats, improve intelligence gathering, and promote community-based law enforcement. Despite these arguments, critics have also raised concerns about the possibility of abuse of state police by governors and political actors, particularly in a country where democratic institutions are still evolving. Against this backdrop, the proposal for a five-year phased implementation has triggered fresh legal debates regarding the best pathway toward reforming Nigeria’s policing system.
IGP’s recommendation
The committee on the framework for the establishment of state police set up by the Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, has recommended, among others, a 60-month phased implementation of the state police, with the first 12 months scheduled for the constitutional and legal foundations.
“Establishment of state services and VTP launches (months 13–24), initial operations and FPS withdrawal from local policing (months 25–42), and full consolidation with an independent evaluation and legislative review (months 43–60)”, the committee said. Before the implementation, the committee recommended the deployment of at least 60 per cent of the Nigerian Police officers to the state police services.
Nigeria, with an estimated 200 million population, currently has a police strength of about 370,000 officers, representing one officer to 600 citizens – a far cry from the United Nations-recommended ratio of one police officer to 450 citizens. This implies that about 222,000 police officers will be moved to the state police if the committee’s recommendation is adopted. The seven-man steering committee set up by the Force had submitted its report to the senate committee on the review of the 1999 Constitution, chaired by Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin.
The chairman of the committee, Professor Olu Ogunsakin, who submitted the 75-page document titled “A comprehensive framework for the establishment, governance and coordination of federal and state police,” on behalf of the Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, said it contains professional insights and recommendations from the police on the proposed creation of state police. Some of the key recommendations in the report include a two-tier policing architecture, which proposes the creation of a Federal Police Service (FPS) and 37 State Police Services (SPS) across the states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory.
The FPS, which will replace the Nigeria Police Force subject to constitutional amendment, will focus on national security, terrorism, interstate crime and federal law enforcement, while the SPS handles local criminal offences, domestic violence, homicide, armed robbery and community policing as their primary mandate.
Notably, the framework proposed that the FPS will retain about 40 per cent of officers for national roles, while the remaining 60 per cent will be redeployed to state police services. “There will be a Voluntary Transfer Programme (VTP) which allows federal police officers to transfer to their home-state or preferred State Police Service. Officers can opt to transfer to their home-state or preferred State Police Service.
The committee recommended a three-month salary Transfer Facilitation Grant, a transition training programme, and a guaranteed Pension Continuity certificate,” a source said. The committee also recommended the establishment of a National Police Standards Board (NPSB), an independent 13-member federal board that will set the minimum national standards covering recruitment, training, conduct, accountability and funding across all police services. The board will also monitor and enforce the standards and publish annual compliance ratings for every state service.
“The report places community policing at the philosophical and operational heart of the state police model, recognising that the erosion of trust between Nigerian communities and the police is not merely a reputational problem, but a fundamental operational liability. Every State Police Service must maintain a dedicated Department of Community Policing, with Community Policing Forums established at every Local Government Area — comprising police officers, traditional leaders, women’s groups, youth organisations, and religious leaders.
Community Liaison Officers will be assigned to specific communities, expected to speak local languages, and evaluated partly on community forum ratings,” another source said. It was further noted that the establishment of state police requires amendments to Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution and the Second Schedule to allow SPS co-exist with the FPS and move the former from the Exclusive List to the Concurrent Legislative List.
A five-year implementation timeline appears unduly prolonged
“A new Section 214A would constitutionally establish a National Police Standards Board,” the report added. Addressing the widespread concern that state police could be weaponised by governors, the report recommended constitutional prohibitions on partisan deployment, constitution of independent State Police Service Commissions insulated from executive interference, criminal sanctions for officials who issue unlawful orders, and a Federal High Court fasttrack review of politically-motivated deployments.
“Oversight is deliberately layered to prevent capture by any single political interest, encompassing: State Police Service Commissions (independent appointment and discipline), State Police Ombudsmen (independent complaints handling), NPSB inspections, State House of Assembly standing committees, mandatory Body-Worn Cameras with secure cloud storage, and public performance dashboards showing use-of-force statistics and community satisfaction data,” it stated.
The framework prescribed dedicated funding through a constitutionally-backed State Police Fund (SPF) that will receive a 3 per cent statutory federal allocation from the Federation Account distributed by population, land area, security need and fiscal capacity, as well as a minimum of 15 per cent contribution from each state government’s security budget. The document further recommended a 60-month phased implementation of the state police, with the first 12 months scheduled for the constitutional and legal foundations.
“Establishment of state services and VTP launches (Months 13–24), initial operations and FPS withdrawal from local policing (Months 25–42), and full consolidation with an independent evaluation and legislative review (Months 43–60),” it added. However, speaking on the proposal, a security analyst, Jeff Okereke, noted that; “such a phased approach would allow relevant authorities to carefully design the necessary legal, institutional, and operational frameworks required for effective decentralised policing”.
He stressed that the transition to state police must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could arise from rushed implementation. According to him, “these include issues relating to funding structures, operational coordination between federal and state police units, recruitment standards, training frameworks, and mechanisms for accountability”.
Okereke also emphasized that the creation of state police would require significant constitutional and legislative adjustments, particularly amendments to sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 that currently place policing powers exclusively under federal authority.
According to him, the phased approach would allow the federal government, state governments, and security institutions to gradually build the necessary capacity to support decentralised policing structures across the country. He also noted that security reforms of such magnitude require extensive consultations among stakeholders, including the National Assembly, state governments, security agencies and civil society organisations.
However, while the proposal may have been intended as a cautious roadmap for reform, it has raised questions among legal experts who fear that a five-year timeline may slow down urgently needed security reforms.
Need for state police
Calls for the establishment of state police are not new in Nigeria. For decades, political leaders, security experts, and legal scholars have debated the merits and risks of decentralising the country’s policing structure. Proponents of state policing argued that Nigeria’s current centralised system has become increasingly ineffective in addressing local security challenges.
They pointed out that the vast size and diverse nature of the country make it difficult for a single national police structure to adequately respond to security threats in all regions. Nigeria has witnessed a steady rise in various forms of insecurity, including kidnapping, banditry, insurgency, and communal clashes.
In many cases, local communities have complained that the existing policing structure lacks the manpower and local intelligence needed to respond swiftly to these threats. Supporters of state police believed that decentralised policing would enable states to recruit officers who are familiar with the local language, culture, and terrain, thereby improving intelligence gathering and crime prevention. Furthermore, advocates argued that state governments are often better positioned to identify and address security challenges specific to their jurisdictions.
However, opponents of state policing have consistently warned that such a system could be misused by governors to suppress political opponents, intimidate critics, and manipulate electoral processes.
These concerns are rooted partly in Nigeria’s political history, particularly during the First Republic, when regional police forces were sometimes accused of being used as political instruments by regional governments. As a result, the debate over state police has remained deeply polarised, with both sides presenting compelling arguments regarding the potential benefits and risks of decentralised policing.
Lawyers speak
In his comments, a rights activist, Abiodun Olugbemide, expressed concern over proposed 60-month timeline, saying it is too long considering the urgency of the need to tackle the challenges of rising insecurity across the country. He said: “This is not a bad idea, merely looking at it, but it does not come without other issues to consider, for it to be holistic.
“One is left to ask; Where does that leave the state structure? Who will be in charge? the IG of police or state government? It will only be reasonably expected to believe that governors will be involved in the appointment of commissioner of police at state levels. “One of the reasons I believe this is a good idea is because Nigeria is so wide geographically, ethnically and religious- wise, and to be honest, the Federal Government has not been able to equip the police properly.
“State police will also create a healthy competition among states, in terms of whose state is more secure, because each state will equip its police. “And inasmuch as we still have one Nigeria, there’s expected to be a synergy between the federal and state police. That means the IGP will be working with state governors to tackle cross-border crimes.
“Now, considering the 60 months period, amidst rising insecurity across the country, I sternly believe and affirm that, the period is too long. Yes, no doubt about it, security matters take time, but instead of waiting for as long as five years, more hands should be on deck, to expedite the process. “One other issue of concern in this new development, is whether all the states will be able to take off at the same time.
In the case of states without ability to take off on time, the federal presence should be made available”. Speaking in the same vein, a senior lawyer, Dauda Badams, also expressed reservations about the proposed 60-month phased implementation of state police, describing the timeline as potentially excessive in the face of Nigeria’s urgent security challenges. “While careful planning is necessary when introducing major constitutional reforms, the country’s deteriorating security situation requires a sense of urgency rather than prolonged timelines. “A five-year waiting period may delay critical reforms needed to strengthen grassroots security across the federation.
Decentralised policing has become increasingly necessary given the limitations of Nigeria’s current centralised security framework. Empowering states to take greater responsibility for their internal security could significantly enhance crime prevention and law enforcement efficiency. “The introduction of state police must be accompanied by strong constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse of power by state governments. Without proper oversight mechanisms, there is a risk that state police forces could be used for political purposes.
“Instead of focusing solely on timelines, policymakers should prioritise the development of robust legal frameworks that ensure accountability, transparency, and operational independence within state police structures”, Badams said. In his views, another senior lawyer, Prince Igbo, also questioned the rationale behind the 60-month timeline for the creation of state police in the country.
He said: “The proposal to take a full 60 months to establish state police in Nigeria is excessive and it indicates lack of political will on the side of the government. It raises serious questions of propriety when juxtaposed with the alarming and immediate nature of insecurity across the federation. “From insurgency in the NorthEast, banditry in the North-West, secessionist agitations in the SouthEast, to kidnapping and violent crimes in other regions, the security crisis is neither theoretical nor distant, it is urgent and existential.
In such circumstance, a five year implementation timeline appears unduly prolonged and risks conveying a lack of political will or strategic urgency. While structural reforms of this magnitude require careful planning, the prolonged timeline may undermine public confidence in the government’s commitment to safeguarding lives and property.
“From a practicability standpoint, however, the establishment of state police is not merely a policy declaration, but a complex constitutional, administrative and financial undertaking. It would necessitate amendments to relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly those relating to policing under the Exclusive Legislative List.
Beyond constitutional alteration, there are critical concerns regarding funding, training, recruitment standards, command structure, intelligence coordination, and safeguards against abuse by state actors. “Given Nigeria’s history of political interference and concerns over misuse of security apparatus at sub national levels, a phased and carefully monitored rollout may indeed justify a longer timeframe, though perhaps not as extensive as 60 months.
“Furthermore, the diversity of Nigeria’s federating units introduces varying degrees of preparedness and capacity. While some states may possess the financial strength and institutional maturity to operationalize state police within a shorter period, others may struggle significantly. This disparity could lead to uneven security architectures across the country, potentially creating safe havens for criminal elements in weaker states.
“Therefore, any timeline must balance urgency with realism, ensuring that minimum national standards are established and enforced to prevent fragmentation of the policing system or erosion of professional standards. “In conclusion, while the 60-month proposal may be defensible from a bureaucratic and structural reform perspective, it is difficult to justify it in light of the pressing and deteriorating security situation in Nigeria. A more pragmatic approach would involve a hybrid model constitutional amendments and pilot implementations in willing and capable states, while simultaneously developing a robust regulatory and oversight framework at the federal level.
“Ultimately, the success of state police will not depend solely on the timeline, but on the sincerity of purpose, institutional safeguards, and the political discipline to ensure that the system enhances security rather than exacerbates existing vulnerabilities”. In his submissions, a former Special Prosecutor Special Presidential Investigation Panel for Recovery of Public Properties, Tosin Ojaomo, said It is worrisome that the Federal Government is not taking the issue of security as a national emergency.
“It is preposterous that the IGP will be proposing a 12 months schedule for constitutional and legal foundation, as a senior member of the bar, my understanding is that once the National Assembly complete the constitutional amendment and the President assent given thereon, the next phase should be enforcement of the law. “What is more troubling at the moment is that those who are at the helm in Nigeria are still playing to the gallery on the issue of security in the country while lives and property are being lost daily.
The problem even transcends the creation of state police. “What about police infrastructure? what of intelligence gathering through the people?, there is a disconect between the police and the security agencies, the so call criminal elements are living in the midst of our people, forest lands are owned by families, communities and the state, infact people are farming in most of this places where the criminal elements use to perpetrate their crimes they are mostly not far from farmlands.
“What we are not looking at as a people is, how did we get to this stage that is almost leading us to the state of anomie, there is gargantuan destruction of social welfare system in Nigeria which helped criminal elements to take advantage of the lacuna to be terrorising the state and the people.
The police as an institution needs immediate reforms. “The funding should be the first line of action, even if state police are created; the problem of infrastructure will still come into play. My advice is that an immediate action should be taken in terms of police funding. We need a national audit of police infrastructure and then determine where there are deficits”
