I understand the argument for State Police. Nigeria is simply too large, too diverse and too insecure to continue pretending that an excessively centralised policing structure controlled from Abuja is the most effective way of protecting over 200 million people.
But before we celebrate this constitutional amendment, we need to remove sentiment from the discussion and conduct a proper SWOT analysis.
The question is not merely whether State Police works elsewhere.
The question is whether State Police can work safely within Nigeria’s peculiar political environment, corruption, weak institutions, compromised electoral processes, political thuggery, abuse of incumbency and a judiciary already struggling to command public confidence.
STRENGTHS
State Police has some compelling advantages.
Local police officers should understand their communities better, the geography, language, culture, criminal networks and peculiar security threats.
Intelligence gathering should consequently improve.
A police command headquartered within a state should also respond faster than a system in which critical operational decisions and deployments can ultimately depend upon a federal hierarchy.
States facing banditry, kidnapping, cultism, oil theft, farmer herder violence or organised criminality could develop specialised responses appropriate to their circumstances.
Governors are currently described politically as chief security officers of their states, yet the police commissioner ultimately belongs to a federal command structure. State Police could finally align responsibility more closely with authority.
Properly designed, therefore, State Police could bring policing closer to the people.
WEAKNESSES
Now we enter dangerous territory.
Who controls the State Police?
The governor?
The State House of Assembly?
An independent State Police Commission?
And how independent would any such commission really be?
We know how political power operates in Nigeria.
In many states, governors exercise enormous influence over their Houses of Assembly, local governments, party structures and political appointments.
Are we now proposing to add an armed police force to that arsenal?
Consider funding.
Some states struggle to pay salaries and pensions. How will they maintain professional police services, forensic laboratories, communications systems, vehicles, weapons, training academies, pensions, insurance and intelligence infrastructure?
A poorly paid policeman carrying a government issued firearm is not necessarily an improvement on our present predicament.
It could simply decentralise corruption.
OPPORTUNITIES
If we somehow get the framework right, State Police presents an enormous opportunity to completely redesign Nigerian policing.
Recruitment could become genuinely local. Technology could be incorporated from inception. State commands could establish modern emergency response systems, forensic capabilities, CCTV networks, databases and properly trained specialist units.
States could compete on security performance just as they increasingly compete on infrastructure and investment.
Most importantly, State Police could relieve the overstretched Nigeria Police Force and allow federal policing to concentrate on interstate crime, terrorism, organised crime, federal offences and national security.
There is therefore a very strong intellectual argument for decentralisation.
But then comes the elephant in the room.
THREATS
Nigeria’s political culture.
Imagine a governor with effective operational control over thousands of armed policemen during an election.
Imagine an opposition candidate attempting to hold a rally against the wishes of that governor.
Imagine journalists investigating corruption.
Imagine protesters assembling outside Government House.
Imagine a businessman who has fallen out with the governor.
Imagine traditional rulers refusing to endorse the government’s preferred candidate.
Imagine intra party primaries where the governor has his own aspirant.
Now give that political establishment its own police force.
That is where my enthusiasm begins to disappear.
We already complain about the misuse of security agencies during elections. State Police could potentially bring that coercive capacity much closer to politicians.
Instead of one police establishment susceptible to political interference, we could end up creating 36 additional centres of potential political coercion.
And what happens when a State Police command clashes with the federal police?
Who has jurisdiction?
Who investigates a governor?
Can State Police investigate the government funding it?
Can a federal agency arrest a State Police officer obstructing a federal investigation?
What happens when a state government refuses federal intervention?
These questions cannot be treated as footnotes.
They are fundamental.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY APPROVING THIS?
This brings me to another uncomfortable question.
How much genuine debate is actually taking place inside our State Houses of Assembly before these approvals are announced?
In far too many states, the legislature has effectively become an extension of the executive. Governors exercise enormous influence over who becomes Speaker, who occupies leadership positions and, in some cases, who even receives the ruling party’s ticket to enter the Assembly.
Many of these chambers are populated by political loyalists whose principal qualification appears to be loyalty to the political structure that produced them. Too many legislators are poorly exposed to the complex constitutional, legal, security and civil liberties implications of legislation of this magnitude.
So when we hear that one State Assembly after another has “approved State Police”, we should ask:
Was there actually a serious debate?
Were constitutional lawyers invited?
Were retired police and military officers consulted?
Were civil society organisations heard?
Were opposition parties allowed to make submissions?
Were journalists, traditional institutions and community organisations consulted?
Did legislators interrogate jurisdiction, funding, recruitment, command structures, political neutrality and human rights safeguards?
Did anyone ask what happens when the governor himself becomes the threat from which citizens require protection?
Or are Assemblies simply raising their hands and voting according to the wishes of their governors?
That question becomes particularly important because these same governors could ultimately become major beneficiaries of the additional coercive powers being created.
A legislature that cannot effectively check a governor today cannot suddenly be expected to effectively supervise that governor’s armed police force tomorrow.
That contradiction should worry every Nigerian.
MY POSITION
I am not opposed to State Police.
In principle, I actually believe that a federation as large and diverse as Nigeria requires decentralised policing.
But good ideas can become dangerous institutions when introduced into dysfunctional political systems without adequate safeguards.
Therefore, before State Police becomes operational, its constitutional architecture must be stronger than the politicians who will inherit it.
Governors must not possess unilateral operational control.
There should be genuinely independent State Police Service Commissions with representation extending beyond the executive and ruling party.
Recruitment, promotion and dismissal must be insulated from partisan politics.
There must be clear federal and state jurisdictions.
Officers must swear allegiance to the Constitution and the law, not governors.
There must be independent complaints and misconduct bodies with powers to investigate police abuses.
Opposition parties, journalists, civil society organisations and peaceful protesters must receive explicit statutory protection against political policing.
There must also be minimum national standards for recruitment, training, firearms, human rights, salaries, pensions, discipline and professional conduct.
And perhaps most importantly, there must be mechanisms allowing serious abuses by State Police to be investigated outside the state command structure.
Otherwise we risk creating something far more dangerous than the problem we are attempting to solve.
The debate therefore should not simply be:
“Do you support State Police?”
That is far too simplistic.
The real questions are:
WHAT KIND OF STATE POLICE?
CONTROLLED BY WHOM?
ACCOUNTABLE TO WHOM?
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM?
FUNDED HOW?
AND WHO PROTECTS THE CITIZEN WHEN THE GOVERNOR WHO CONTROLS THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE BECOMES THE PERSON FROM WHOM THAT CITIZEN NEEDS PROTECTION?
Until those questions are satisfactorily answered, I will approach the excitement surrounding State Police with extreme caution.
Nigeria certainly needs better policing.
But in our peculiar society, we must be careful that in trying to bring the police closer to the people, we do not inadvertently bring political oppression closer to their doorsteps.
Hon. Chimazuru Nnadi-Oforgu
Oblong Media Global Intelligence
Leave a Reply