State Police by ambush: Why Nigeria must not rewrite its security architecture in haste
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
The speed with which the National Assembly is pushing the State Police constitutional amendment should alarm every Nigerian who cares about democracy, constitutionalism and accountable policing.
This is not how a country reforms one of the most fundamental pillars of its constitutional order.
The establishment of State Police is arguably the most consequential alteration to Nigeria’s security architecture since the return to democratic rule in 1999. It deserves rigorous national debate, broad-based consultation and painstaking scrutiny – not legislative haste disguised as efficiency.
The justification offered by the leadership of the National Assembly is troubling. We are told that the stakeholder engagements during the National Assembly Open Week have effectively satisfied the public hearing requirement. That assertion raises more questions than it answers.
Were Nigerians presented with the actual Executive Bill before those engagements? Were citizens, civil society organisations, legal practitioners, security experts and state governments given sufficient time to study the provisions? Were they invited to interrogate the safeguards against abuse? Or were they merely consulted on the broad concept of State Police?
These are not technical questions. They go to the heart of democratic legitimacy.
A constitutional amendment cannot derive legitimacy from consultations on a document that the public has not seen. Public participation is not a procedural box to be ticked; it is a constitutional obligation and a democratic imperative.
The Deputy Speaker described the State Police Bill as one of President Bola Tinubu’s signature constitutional reform initiatives and assured Nigerians that the Executive and Legislature are working together to fast-track its passage. That may well be true. But constitutional amendments are not presidential projects. They belong to the Nigerian people.
The National Assembly is not an extension of the Executive. It exists to scrutinise Executive proposals, not merely to expedite them.
When lawmakers openly declare that “time is of the essence” in altering the Constitution, Nigerians should ask: whose urgency is being served?
Certainly not the urgency of victims of insecurity, who have waited decades for effective policing.
Certainly not the urgency of communities demanding justice and accountability.
Certainly not the urgency of victims of police brutality who know that changing the structure of policing without changing its culture merely decentralises abuse.
The central question is one that has been deliberately ignored: What problem is State Police intended to solve, and what guarantees exist that it will not create even greater problems?
Those who present State Police as the silver bullet for insecurity oversimplify a far more complex challenge.
Nigeria’s policing crisis is not fundamentally a crisis of structure. It is a crisis of governance.
The Nigeria Police Force suffers from political interference, inadequate funding, poor welfare, weak accountability, corruption, poor training, abuse of power, ineffective intelligence, poor criminal investigation capacity and chronic failure to implement existing reforms.
None of these problems automatically disappear because police officers become employees of state governments.
Indeed, without robust constitutional safeguards, State Police could multiply rather than reduce the risks of political intimidation, electoral violence, suppression of dissent and abuse of minorities.
Ironically, many governors demanding State Police have failed to demonstrate transparency and accountability in managing institutions already under their control. Several states have weakened local government autonomy despite constitutional guarantees. Others have weaponised state institutions against political opponents and critics.
Should Nigerians simply assume that these same political actors will exercise greater restraint once they control armed police services?
Faith is not a constitutional safeguard.
Hope is not an accountability mechanism.
Political promises are not institutional guarantees.
Those advocating State Police often accuse sceptics of defending the failed status quo. That is a false choice.
Rejecting a hurried constitutional amendment does not mean defending the current policing system. It means insisting that reform should be thoughtful rather than impulsive; evidence-based rather than politically driven; constitutional rather than expedient.
The debate has also been framed deceptively as Federal Police versus State Police.
That is not the real issue.
The real issue is accountable policing.
Nigeria can decentralise policing functions while retaining strong national standards, independent oversight, operational professionalism and constitutional safeguards. The Police Act 2020 already provides a framework for community policing, improved accountability and decentralised administration. Much of that law remains poorly implemented.
Why are we rushing to amend the Constitution before implementing existing reforms?
Why is there no comprehensive public assessment of the failures and successes of the Police Act 2020?
Why has the National Assembly not first demanded full implementation of existing police reforms before proposing a radical restructuring?
The answers matter.
Constitutions are designed to restrain political enthusiasm, not amplify it.
The greater the power being created, the greater the scrutiny it deserves.
Unfortunately, what Nigerians are witnessing appears less like constitutional deliberation and more like constitutional acceleration.
That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on State Police.
If State Police is truly in the national interest, its proponents should welcome robust debate rather than legislative haste.
They should publish the complete Executive Bill.
They should invite comprehensive public memoranda.
They should conduct transparent public hearings on the actual text of the Bill.
They should explain every safeguard against abuse.
They should persuade Nigerians through reason rather than speed.
A constitutional amendment that reshapes policing for generations should emerge from national consensus – not legislative ambush.
The Constitution belongs to the Nigerian people.
It must never be amended faster than the people can understand it.
Nwanguma is the Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
