State police debate: Decentralising police could decentralise its problems, speakers warn at CAPPA webinar
By Ishaya Ibrahim
Speakers at a webinar organised by the Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) have warned that creating state police without strong accountability safeguards could simply transfer the problems of the Nigeria Police Force from the federal to the state level.
The warning was given on Tuesday, July 29, 2026, at CAPPA’s webinar themed “Insecurity, State Policing and the Way Forward for Nigeria.”
Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), Okechukwu Nwanguma, said during his presentation that Nigeria urgently needs policing reform, but cautioned against framing the debate as Federal Police versus State Police.
According to him, the real issue should be Accountable Policing versus Unaccountable Policing.
“Without these safeguards, state police may simply reproduce at the state level the same problems Nigerians currently experience nationally,” Nwanguma said.
He noted that many of the failures associated with the current system, which included poor emergency response, weak investigations, corruption, torture, unlawful detention, political interference and poor welfare are not products of centralisation alone, but failures of governance, leadership, funding and accountability.
“Changing who employs police officers will not automatically change police culture,” he said.
Nwanguma also faulted the ongoing constitution amendment process at the National Assembly, describing the concerns raised by the Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives over the State Police Bill as troubling.
The Minority had alleged that the Bill was rushed, referred to committee without debate, and that amendments developed after consultations with constitutional lawyers were ignored.
“Constitutional amendments are unlike ordinary legislation. They reshape the architecture of the Nigerian state and therefore demand transparency, rigorous debate, broad stakeholder consultation and strict adherence to due process,” he said.
He said RULAAC supports greater decentralisation of policing, but warned that decentralisation should not be mistaken for state police. Decentralisation, he explained, could also mean devolving operational authority, strengthening local command, and localising recruitment within a unified national service as already provided for in the Nigeria Police Act 2020, which remains poorly implemented.
Drawing from history and comparative experience, Nwanguma recalled that Nigeria’s Native Authority Police and Local Government Police were abolished after 1966 because they became tools for political manipulation and repression.
“History therefore reminds us that decentralisation can also decentralise repression where democratic institutions are weak,” he said, citing studies by Prof. Etannibi Alemika and Prof. David Bayley to argue that democratic policing depends more on governance and accountability than on structure.
He listed essential safeguards that must be in the constitution if state police is adopted to include national minimum standards for recruitment and training, constitutional guarantee of operational independence, independent civilian oversight with enforcement powers, transparent complaints mechanisms, sustainable funding, protection against use of police for electoral intimidation, and effective coordination between federal and state commands.
“Our objective should never be simply to create more police forces. Our objective should be to create better policing,” he said.
In his intervention, Executive Director of CAPPA, Akinbode Oluwafemi, said a key question that must be resolved in the debate is who will police the police.
“We already know about the poor remuneration and lack of tools. We must have a system that ensures the police serve the people. Public trust in the policing system is very important,” he said.
Speaking on the sub-theme, ‘State Policing and Democratic Participation: What Role for Nigerian Youths?’, Dr. Glory Ukwenga argued that youths should not be seen only as enforcers of security, but as key stakeholders.
“The role of youths weighs more at the community level and in influencing policy outputs and outcomes. Where effective, youth participation will be seen as a security asset rather than a social welfare concern,” she said.
She recommended that youths should be engaged through platforms such as Youth Security Advisory Councils, State Security Youth Forums, an Annual National Youth Security Dialogue, youth representatives on Police Service Commission advisory committees, and Local Government Community Safety Councils.
