FG set to transmit national policing bill to National Assembly

Nigeria’s long-running quest to establish state police has reached another significant stage, with the Presidential Working Group on policing reforms announcing that the proposed National Policing Bill is 90 per cent ready for transmission to the National Assembly, amid renewed efforts to decentralise law enforcement and strengthen the country’s response to insecurity.

The latest development represents another chapter in a debate that has persisted since the return to democratic rule in 1999, with successive administrations confronting the constitutional, political and institutional obstacles to allowing states to establish and control their own police services. Blueprint reports

Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu and Chairman of the Presidential Working Group, Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, disclosed the progress on Thursday after a meeting of the group’s steering committee at the State House, Abuja.

He said the bill could be transmitted to the National Assembly within the next two weeks, subject to the resolution of outstanding observations raised by governors.

“The National Policing Bill is more or less ready for transmission to the National Assembly. We will probably have one more meeting after this to cross the t’s and dot the i’s and make sure every area is covered. So, we are 90% ready,” Gbajabiamila said.

“The governors have one or two observations, and we should be ready in about a week or so,” he added.

Describing the proposed legislation as “the most consequential Bill of the administration so far”, Gbajabiamila said the steering committee had undertaken intensive deliberations since August 3.

The renewed push comes as Nigeria grapples with terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence and other security threats that have intensified calls for a policing structure capable of responding more directly to local conditions.

However, the history of state police proposals shows that the challenge has never been simply to establish another police institution. It has also involved deciding who controls it, how it will be funded, what safeguards will prevent political abuse and how it will operate alongside the existing Nigeria Police Force.

State police existed before the centralisation of policing

Although the current debate is often presented as a proposal to introduce a new system, Nigeria had regional and local police arrangements before the military centralised policing authority in the 1960s.

During the First Republic, the Northern and Western regions operated regional police structures, while local authorities also maintained police arrangements within their jurisdictions.

Those forces formed part of the country’s earlier federal structure, under which policing was not organised exclusively through a single national command.

Following the military takeover in 1966, the government of General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi moved to unify the country’s police structure. Decree No. 34 of 1966, associated with the unification policy, helped consolidate policing under a central command.

The legacy of that arrangement remains in the 1999 Constitution, which provides for one Nigeria Police Force and prohibits the establishment of another police force for the federation or any part of it.

Section 214 of the Constitution is therefore one of the principal legal obstacles to state police. Establishing separate state police services requires constitutional alteration, rather than merely a decision by a governor or an ordinary state law.

Section 215 also places the Nigeria Police Force under the command of the Inspector-General of Police, with commissioners heading commands in individual states but remaining within the federal police hierarchy.

Consequently, the commissioner of police currently serving in a state is not the head of an independent state police service. The commissioner commands the federal police contingent deployed to that state, subject to the authority of the Inspector-General.

The proposed reform seeks to change that fundamental arrangement by creating a constitutional basis for state police services alongside a federal police service.

How successive administrations approached the issue

The question of state police has resurfaced repeatedly since Nigeria returned to civilian government in 1999.

During the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the idea featured in discussions about policing and the distribution of powers in the federation. However, the country did not establish state police under his administration.

The debate became more prominent during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, particularly through the 2014 National Conference convened to consider constitutional, political and governance reforms.

At the conference, proponents argued that states needed greater responsibility for policing because communities faced different security challenges and required law enforcement agencies familiar with their local environments.

The proposal encountered resistance during committee deliberations, with opponents raising concerns about the possible misuse of state-controlled police forces. Delegates were divided over whether policing powers should be moved from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List, which would allow both federal and state authorities to exercise responsibilities in the area.

The conference eventually approved recommendations supporting state police during its plenary proceedings in June 2014. However, the conference recommendations did not automatically amend the Constitution or establish state police. Further political and constitutional action was required, and the proposal was not implemented during Jonathan’s presidency.

The administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari also faced mounting demands for policing reform as banditry, kidnapping and insurgency became major national security concerns.

Buhari’s government pursued police reforms, including the Police Act 2020 and community policing initiatives. However, these measures did not establish independent state police forces, and operational command remained within the national police structure.

The recurring pattern was that state police received attention in national debates and reform proposals but failed to cross the constitutional and political hurdles required for implementation.

Why earlier attempts failed

Several obstacles explain why the proposal remained unresolved for so long.

The first was the constitutional restriction on the establishment of separate police forces. Under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, creating state police requires an amendment to the existing constitutional arrangement.

That process is more demanding than passing an ordinary bill. Under Section 9 of the Constitution, an alteration requires the support of at least two-thirds of the members of each chamber of the National Assembly and approval by resolutions of at least two-thirds of the 36 state Houses of Assembly.

The second obstacle has been the fear that governors could use state police to intimidate political opponents, suppress dissent, interfere in elections or target communities that oppose their governments.

Nigeria’s political history and the concentration of executive power at state level have made the issue particularly sensitive. Critics argue that giving governors direct authority over police operations without effective checks could expose residents to politically motivated arrests, harassment and selective enforcement of the law.

Supporters of state police, however, argue that these risks can be addressed through independent oversight, transparent appointments, professional standards and legal safeguards rather than by retaining an entirely centralised system.

Funding has also been a major concern. States differ considerably in their internally generated revenue, federal allocations, infrastructure and administrative capacity.

Establishing a police service requires sustained spending on recruitment, training, salaries, pensions, uniforms, vehicles, communications equipment, weapons, accommodation, forensic facilities and operational logistics.

Opponents have therefore questioned whether every state could establish and maintain an effective police service without diverting funds from healthcare, education, infrastructure and other public responsibilities.

There are also concerns about professional standards, human rights, the use of firearms, detention facilities and the possibility of state police officers becoming vulnerable to local political or economic interests.

Another challenge is coordination. Criminal networks frequently operate across state boundaries, meaning separate police services would need reliable systems for sharing intelligence, pursuing suspects and conducting joint investigations.

These concerns contributed to the failure of earlier proposals to translate into an operational state police system.

The 2018 constitutional amendment effort

One of the more prominent legislative efforts came in 2018, when former Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu sponsored a bill seeking to amend the Constitution to allow the establishment of state police.

The proposal advanced through early legislative stages, receiving support from lawmakers who argued that decentralised policing was consistent with Nigeria’s federal structure and could improve responses to local security challenges.

A related proposal was also considered in the House of Representatives. However, the effort did not complete the constitutional amendment process.

Concerns about the possible abuse of state police by governors, inadequate funding, weak safeguards and the capacity of state institutions remained central to the debate.

The failure of that effort reinforced the difficulty of securing agreement on the structure, control and accountability of state police, even when the need for security reforms was widely acknowledged.

The issue nevertheless remained part of the national conversation, particularly as insecurity expanded and governors continued to argue that they were expected to take responsibility for security without exercising direct operational command over the federal police deployed to their states.

Tinubu’s renewed push and the current legislative process

President Bola Tinubu has made the establishment of state police a prominent part of his administration’s security reform agenda.

The renewed momentum has been supported by calls from state governors, lawmakers and other stakeholders for a policing structure that gives states greater capacity to address local security threats.

In March 2024, the administration began consultations on the proposal, with state governors submitting positions in support of reviewing the constitutional framework. By December 2024, the National Economic Council had reported support for state police among the governors.

The issue subsequently moved into a fresh phase of legislative action in 2026.

The National Assembly considered constitutional amendment proposals intended to establish a dual policing structure, allowing federal and state police services to operate within a national legal framework.

In June 2026, the House of Representatives approved a constitutional amendment proposal for state police. President Tinubu also transmitted an executive proposal, leading lawmakers to revisit the legislative framework and consider the executive bill.

The National Assembly transmitted the state police constitutional amendment bill to the 36 state Houses of Assembly on September 16, 2026, for consideration and approval.

Under Section 9 of the Constitution, at least 24 of the 36 state assemblies must approve the proposed amendment for the constitutional process to proceed.

However, progress remained limited as of October 15, when reports indicated that only five state assemblies—Edo, Osun, Oyo, Rivers and Zamfara—had approved the amendment.

The figure illustrates the difference between political support for the idea and the formal constitutional approvals required to establish state police.

The proposed National Policing Bill being finalised by the Presidential Working Group represents a related but distinct component of the reform. It is intended to provide the legislative and operational framework for policing arrangements, while the constitutional amendment would remove the existing legal prohibition and establish the constitutional basis for state police services.

Both processes must be completed in accordance with the relevant legal requirements before the proposed system can become fully operational.

How state police would work under the proposal

The proposed reform would create a two-tier policing structure comprising a federal police service and state police services.

The federal service would continue to operate nationally, handling federal policing responsibilities and coordinating investigations and operations that cross state boundaries.

States would be empowered to establish their own police services through enabling laws passed by their respective Houses of Assembly, subject to the constitutional framework and national minimum standards.

A state police service would be headed by a commissioner of police appointed through the process prescribed by the proposed constitutional framework. The proposal provides for governors to play a central role in the appointment, with institutional checks involving the relevant police service commission and the State House of Assembly.

This would differ from the current arrangement, under which the commissioner of police deployed to a state heads the federal police command and remains under the authority of the Inspector-General of Police.

Under state policing, the commissioner would head the state’s own police service, with responsibilities for directing its operations within the limits established by law.

The proposed framework also envisages state police service commissions to oversee personnel matters, including recruitment, promotion and discipline, while national standards would guide training, certification, use of force, firearms, custody, complaints and accountability.

The aim is to give states greater capacity to address local crimes while maintaining professional standards and coordination across the federation.

State police would not automatically replace the federal police in any state. Rather, the two services would operate alongside each other, with their respective powers and responsibilities defined by law.

States would also need to demonstrate that they could meet the prescribed requirements for establishing and sustaining their police services.

Safeguards against political interference

The appointment of state police commissioners by governors is among the most consequential and controversial elements of the proposal.

Supporters argue that governors need a more direct role in security management because they are held accountable by residents for what happens within their jurisdictions.

Critics, however, warn that placing police leadership under state political authorities could create opportunities for abuse, particularly during elections or disputes involving opposition parties.

The proposed checks on appointments, the role of police service commissions and legislative oversight are intended to reduce those risks.

The framework also envisages safeguards against unlawful directives, arbitrary arrests, politically motivated investigations and the use of police powers against individuals or groups simply because they criticise the government.

For such protections to be effective, oversight bodies would need to operate independently, complaints would need to be investigated properly and officers who violate the law would have to face consequences.

The funding question is equally important. States would require predictable revenue to recruit and train personnel, provide equipment and sustain operations. Without adequate financing, some state police services could struggle to meet national standards, creating significant differences in policing quality across the country.

Coordination between state and federal services would also be essential. Kidnapping, arms trafficking, terrorism and other organised crimes frequently cross jurisdictional boundaries, making information sharing and joint operations indispensable.

The central challenge is therefore to decentralise policing without weakening professional standards, citizens’ rights or the capacity to tackle crimes that extend beyond individual states.

Security pressures driving the demand for reform

The renewed urgency surrounding state police reflects the scale and diversity of Nigeria’s security challenges.

The North-East continues to face insurgency, while parts of the North-West and North-Central have experienced banditry, mass abductions, attacks on rural communities and other forms of organised violence.

Other parts of the country have also faced kidnapping, communal conflicts, separatist-linked violence, cultism, oil theft and criminal activities that require different forms of local intelligence and law enforcement.

Advocates of state police argue that officers recruited and deployed within their communities could develop better knowledge of local terrain, languages, relationships and patterns of criminal activity.

They also argue that state police could improve response times, increase security presence in underserved communities and reduce the pressure on the federal police, which is responsible for policing the entire country.

However, decentralisation alone cannot guarantee improved security. Its success would depend on effective recruitment, training, equipment, intelligence gathering, funding, accountability and cooperation between the different levels of policing.

The reform must also avoid creating police formations that operate as instruments of political power rather than institutions responsible for protecting citizens and enforcing the law.

Governors and police leadership attend meeting

The steering committee meeting at the State House was attended by the Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum and Governor of Kwara State, AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq; Governor Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State; Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna State; and Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice was represented by the Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mrs Beatrice Jedy-Agba.

Other participants included Chairman of the Policy Advisory Committee, Justice Abdullahi Liman (retd.); Head of the Nigeria Police Reform Secretariat, Professor Olu Ogunsakin; and Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters (House of Representatives), Dr Lanre Smart.

Also present were the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Planning and Research and Secretary of the Committee, Nnadubem Moghalu; a representative of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association; and AIG Abraham Nabhon Thomas, representing the National Security Adviser.

Gbajabiamila said the working group expected to hold another meeting to resolve the remaining observations before transmitting the National Policing Bill to the National Assembly.

The proposed legislation and the constitutional amendment now face the task of translating decades of debate into a workable legal and institutional framework.

For state police to become a reality, the outstanding constitutional approvals must be secured, the necessary legislation enacted and the institutional safeguards put in place.

After more than two decades of renewed proposals and unsuccessful efforts, the present process has brought the debate to another decisive stage. Whether it produces a lasting change will depend on the ability of federal and state authorities to agree not only on the need for decentralised policing but also on how it will be funded, controlled, coordinated and held accountable.