DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd), FSPSP, FIPMA, psc

Few national issues have generated as much debate in recent years as the proposal to establish state police in Nigeria. While many see decentralised policing as a necessary response to the country’s worsening security challenges, others remain sceptical, warning that it could revive the abuses associated with the defunct regional police system.

These concerns are understandable. Constitutional reforms, particularly those involving national security, should never be undertaken lightly. However, history should serve as a guide for better policymaking, not as a barrier to progress.

Nigeria has changed significantly since the regional police system was abolished more than five decades ago. The country now operates under a democratic constitutional order with stronger institutions, greater judicial independence, more active legislative oversight, a vibrant media, an increasingly influential civil society, and citizens who demand greater transparency and accountability.

These developments provide a far stronger foundation for implementing a decentralised policing system than existed in the past.

Rather than allowing historical mistakes to discourage reform, Nigeria should draw lessons from them and build robust safeguards capable of preventing their recurrence.

It is equally important to recognise that decentralised policing is neither unusual nor experimental. Many federal democracies successfully operate multiple policing structures with clearly defined constitutional responsibilities.

Countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and India maintain both national and subnational police organisations that function under well-established legal frameworks, professional standards and independent oversight.

Nigeria therefore has the advantage of learning not only from its own history but also from international best practices.

A complementary system, not a replacement

One misconception surrounding the current proposal is that state police would replace the Nigeria Police Force.

That is not what is before the National Assembly.

The proposal seeks to establish a complementary policing structure where both federal and state police operate side by side under clearly defined constitutional responsibilities.

Under the arrangement, the Nigeria Police Force would continue to handle national security matters, terrorism, interstate and transnational crimes, organised criminal networks, border security and other federal offences.

State police, on the other hand, would focus primarily on community policing, enforcement of state laws, local intelligence gathering, neighbourhood crime prevention and rapid response to local security threats.

Such an arrangement would not weaken national security. Rather, it would allow the Federal Police to concentrate on strategic national responsibilities while bringing policing closer to the communities where crimes often originate.

Abuse is possible—but manageable

Perhaps the strongest argument against state police is the fear that governors may misuse the institution for political purposes.

That concern should not be dismissed. However, the possibility of abuse is not unique to policing.

Executive powers can be abused. Legislatures can misuse their authority. Electoral institutions can be manipulated. Yet democracies do not abolish these institutions because of potential abuse. Instead, they establish constitutional safeguards, independent oversight, judicial review and public accountability to minimise such risks.

The same principle should apply to state police.

The proposed constitutional framework already envisages stronger safeguards than existed under the old regional police arrangement. These include constitutional limitations on operational powers, minimum professional standards, legislative supervision, judicial scrutiny, independent oversight, intergovernmental coordination and clearly defined circumstances under which the Federal Government may intervene.

Such mechanisms are intended to ensure that policing remains accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law rather than to individual political office holders.

The limitations of centralised policing

Perhaps the strongest case for reform lies in Nigeria’s own experience.

For more than 50 years, the country has relied almost exclusively on a centralised policing structure. During that period, successive governments have introduced numerous reforms, recruited more officers, reorganised commands, procured equipment and reviewed policing strategies.

Yet insecurity has continued to evolve and, in many parts of the country, worsen.

This is not an indictment of the Nigeria Police Force or its personnel, whose sacrifices under extremely difficult conditions deserve national recognition.

Rather, it suggests that the complexity and scale of Nigeria’s present-day security challenges require a broader institutional response.

Today’s security threats are increasingly localised. Criminal intelligence is often generated within communities. Effective policing depends on officers who understand local languages, customs, terrain and social dynamics.

A properly regulated state police system could significantly improve intelligence gathering, enhance community trust and enable quicker responses to emerging threats.

Reform is part of democracy

No constitutional reform is ever perfect from the outset.

Democratic societies continuously improve their institutions as experience reveals strengths and weaknesses.

Should the implementation of state police expose gaps in the legal framework, both the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly possess the constitutional authority to strengthen oversight mechanisms, amend relevant laws and improve operational procedures.

That is how enduring democratic institutions evolve.

Nigeria should therefore approach the state police debate with confidence, constitutional discipline and careful planning—not fear.

If properly designed and responsibly implemented, state police can strengthen community safety, improve intelligence gathering, deepen cooperation with the Nigeria Police Force and bring law enforcement closer to the people without undermining national unity.

After more than five decades of relying on a single centralised policing model, providing a carefully regulated complementary policing system with an opportunity is not a leap into the unknown. It is a measured constitutional response to changing security realities, informed by history, enriched by international experience and grounded in democratic principles.

The real question is not whether reform carries risks. Every meaningful reform does.

The real question is whether Nigeria has the wisdom to learn from its past, the courage to improve its institutions and the determination to build a policing system capable of meeting the security needs of its people.

History should remain our teacher—not our jailer.

DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd), FSPSP, FIPMA, psc is a former commissioner of Police in Kano. 

DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd.)

The renewed national debate on state policing has sparked intense discussions. Supporters see it as a solution to Nigeria’s worsening security challenges. Critics, however, fear political abuse and threats to national unity. Given these differing views, it is important to understand the true constitutional position of the current proposals before the National Assembly.

An examination of the *Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 (SB. 1055)*, along with the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) analysis of the earlier House Bill (HB. 617), shows that the proposed framework is neither a full transfer of policing powers to the states nor a continuation of the current centralized system. Instead, it introduces a cooperative federal policing model.

This model balances state autonomy with national standards and constitutional safeguards.

The first key point is that the Federal Police will not be abolished. The proposal creates a Federal Police Service while allowing State Police Services to operate alongside it. The Federal Police will continue to handle federal responsibilities, including counter-terrorism, cybercrime investigations, border security, organized crime, inter-state offences, and the protection of federal institutions and assets.

It is also important to note that state policing is not compulsory. States that lack the financial or institutional capacity to establish their own police services can continue to rely entirely on the Federal Police Service. In simple terms, the amendment gives states a choice, not an obligation, to establish their own police organizations.

The proposed framework sets strict conditions before a State Police Service can begin operations. A state must pass its own enabling law, establish the required institutions, and obtain certification confirming that it meets nationally defined minimum standards.

These standards will cover recruitment, training, vetting, discipline, firearms management, the use of force, accountability systems, and criminal information management.

One of the most debated issues is the possibility of federal interference in state policing. The Senate Bill addresses this concern by limiting federal intervention to exceptional situations. Such intervention may occur where there is an actual or imminent breakdown of public order. It may also occur if a governor requests assistance, if a State Police Service becomes unable to function, if there is evidence of widespread violations of fundamental rights, or if threats extend beyond state borders and affect national security.

Any federal intervention must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate. It must also be subject to judicial review. The President must authorize it in writing, and notice must be given to the Governor, the State House of Assembly, the National Police Council, and the National Assembly. In addition, such intervention cannot dissolve a State Police Service or suspend democratic institutions, except as permitted under existing constitutional provisions.

The framers of the Bill have also addressed concerns about possible misuse of State Police Services by governors. The proposed safeguards expressly prohibit governors from directing State Commissioners of Police to target political opponents, political parties, associations, or groups outside the provisions of the law.

Commissioners who believe a directive is unlawful or inconsistent with national standards may seek a review through the appropriate Police Service Commission or the courts.

To strengthen institutional independence, the proposed amendments provide security of tenure for both the Inspector-General of Police and State Commissioners of Police. Their removal would require valid reasons, a fair hearing, recommendations from the National Police Council, and approval by a two-thirds majority of the relevant legislature.

These measures reflect widely accepted international standards for democratic policing.

Another important feature of the framework is the clear limitation on federal control over State Police Services. While the National Assembly will establish national minimum standards, it will not exercise routine control over appointments, promotions, transfers, suspensions, dismissals, or operational decisions within State Police Services. The only exception is during constitutionally approved interventions.

This approach preserves state autonomy while ensuring consistent professional and ethical standards nationwide.

The PLAC analysis correctly notes that the proposed model does not create a fully independent state policing system. Instead, it incorporates elements of federal oversight to address concerns relating to funding, accountability, human rights protection, and potential political misuse. The objective is to decentralize policing without weakening national unity or undermining the constitutional order.

Viewed objectively, the proposed amendment seeks to balance local responsiveness with national integrity. It aims to bring policing closer to communities while maintaining safeguards against abuse. It also protects the shared security interests of the Federation.

In essence, Nigeria is not moving toward two competing police systems. Rather, it is moving toward a cooperative federal policing arrangement. This model recognizes the need for local control of security issues while preserving constitutional mechanisms that safeguard democracy, human rights, and national unity.

The success of this initiative will depend not only on constitutional provisions but also on the strength of institutions, adherence to professionalism, and the political will to uphold the rule of law. Like any major reform in a democratic society, state policing should be judged not only by fears but also by the safeguards it contains and the practical benefits it can bring to the security and welfare of Nigerians.

DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd.). 

By Jamilu Uba Adamu

Since 1987, June 26 has been designated by the United Nations as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking—a day set aside to raise awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and society. This year’s theme, “The World Drug Problem: Persisting Issues, New Challenges, Innovative Responses,” reminds us that while the fight against drugs continues, our strategies must evolve.

Simply put, the drug problem is still with us. New drugs continue to emerge, and we must respond with innovative solutions, including the use of sports to keep our youths engaged and productive.

Nigeria’s greatest resource is not oil; it is its youth. The energy, creativity, and determination of young people will determine whether we build a stronger nation or lose a generation. One of the most effective tools for channeling that energy positively is sports—but only when it is built on discipline.

Sports is more than playing football on weekends or sprinting on the track. It teaches valuable life lessons. When a young person wakes up at 5:00 a.m. for training, they learn punctuality. When a team loses and returns to train harder, they learn resilience. When eleven players on a pitch follow the instructions of one coach, they learn respect for authority, teamwork, and discipline.

Here in Kano, the effects of drug abuse are both painful and visible. Drug abuse is fueling fadan daba, phone snatching, and other violent crimes across our streets and communities. The truth is simple: idle hands are the devil’s workshop, while busy feet on the pitch have little time for crime or drugs.

Talent without discipline is wasted talent. Many of our youths possess enormous potential, but without discipline, that potential often turns into frustration. Discipline means:

• Self-control — saying “no” to peer pressure, drugs, and violence.
• Consistency — training even when no one is watching.
• Respect — for rules, opponents, coaches, and oneself.

A boxer who cannot control his temper outside the ring will never become a champion inside it. A footballer who skips training will never wear the national jersey. Discipline is the bridge between potential and achievement.

In our communities, we see too many young lives derailed by drugs. The equation is clear: idleness + bad company + lack of purpose = drug abuse. Sports helps break that cycle.

Let us encourage our youths to choose the pitch over the street corner and the “jungle.” Let them choose training over idleness. Let discipline be their guide in life, just as it is in sports.

To parents, schools, and government: invest in sports facilities and mentorship programmes across our 44 Local Government Areas. Every playing field we build in Kano is a prison we may never need. Every disciplined athlete we nurture is a future leader we secure.

If we get this right, Kano, with its vibrant and youthful population, will not only win trophies at national sporting events but will also reclaim its promising young people from the grip of drug abuse and crime.

Mr. Jamilu Uba Adamu is the Officer-in-Charge of Sports, NDLEA Kano Strategic Command.

He can be reached via jameelubaadamu@yahoo.com.