The Bill must not be sacrificed on the altar of legislative complacency, writes TOCHUKWU JIMO OBI
Nigeria’s worsening security challenges demand urgent, practical and far-reaching reforms, yet the unnecessary delays by the majority of State Houses of Assembly in approving the constitutional amendment for the establishment of State Police are becoming increasingly worrisome. At a time when communities across the country continue to grapple with banditry, kidnapping, terrorism, armed robbery and other violent crimes, it is disappointing that a legislative process capable of strengthening the nation’s security architecture is yet to receive the urgency it deserves. The question is no longer whether Nigeria needs a more decentralised policing system, but why those entrusted with the responsibility of facilitating this reform appear reluctant to act with the speed required.
The National Assembly transmitted the proposed constitutional amendment to the 36 State Houses of Assembly on 16 September 2026, setting in motion another critical stage in the effort to establish State Police. However, as of 15 October 2026, only four states, namely Edo, Oyo, Osun and Rivers, had formally approved the proposed amendment through their respective State Houses of Assembly. This is a disappointing development considering that approval by at least 24 of the 36 state legislatures is constitutionally required for the relevant constitutional amendment to proceed. With just four states having reportedly given their approval, the country remains a considerable distance from the required threshold, raising serious questions about the commitment of many state legislatures to a reform that could significantly influence Nigeria’s security future.
Although some other states have expressed support for State Police in principle, verbal endorsements and political declarations are not substitutes for legislative action. The constitutional amendment process requires the respective State Houses of Assembly to consider the proposal and formally communicate their decisions. Consequently, governors, lawmakers and political leaders who have publicly advocated State Police must demonstrate that commitment through concrete action. It is not enough to tell Nigerians that the present policing arrangement is inadequate while the legislative opportunity to change it remains unattended. The time has come for state legislatures to move beyond expressions of support and discharge their constitutional responsibilities without unnecessary hesitation.
More concerning is the fact that electioneering campaigns are approaching, and many State Houses of Assembly may devote increasing attention to political activities at the expense of legislative business. If the current pace continues, the proposed amendment could suffer further delays as lawmakers become preoccupied with political consultations, party interests and preparations for forthcoming elections. This possibility is particularly troubling because constitutional amendment processes require the fulfilment of specific legal and procedural requirements. The opportunity before the assemblies should therefore not be treated as an ordinary legislative matter that can be postponed indefinitely. Every day lost to avoidable delays brings the country no closer to the security reform it urgently needs.
Nigeria’s security challenges have become too complex for a policing structure that relies predominantly on a centralised federal force controlled from Abuja. The Nigeria Police Force has personnel who work under difficult conditions, often with limited resources, while confronting security threats across a vast and diverse country. However, a single national structure cannot always provide the local intelligence, rapid response and community familiarity required to tackle every security challenge effectively. State Police, if properly established and regulated, could complement federal policing by improving local intelligence gathering, strengthening community partnerships and enabling security responses that reflect the peculiar circumstances of individual states. Nigeria needs multiple, coordinated layers of policing rather than an arrangement that places an overwhelming burden on one central institution.
Nevertheless, the establishment of State Police must be accompanied by strong constitutional safeguards, professional standards, adequate funding and effective accountability mechanisms. Concerns that state governors could misuse local police formations against political opponents, intimidate critics or persecute vulnerable communities should not be dismissed. Instead, such concerns should inform the design of an effective legal framework that guarantees operational professionalism, respect for fundamental rights and independent oversight. Federal and state police formations must operate within clearly defined jurisdictions, with mechanisms to prevent political interference and resolve interagency conflicts. These safeguards, however, should not become excuses for indefinite legislative inaction. The appropriate response to legitimate concerns is to address them through sound legislation, not to abandon or frustrate the reform.
Governors also have an important role to play in accelerating the process. Given the political influence many governors exercise within their respective states and the relationships they maintain with lawmakers elected on their party platforms, they can use their influence constructively to encourage prompt consideration of the proposed amendment.
They should engage their State Houses of Assembly, support informed legislative debate and help remove avoidable obstacles to approval. Such engagement must respect the constitutional independence of the legislatures, but it should equally reflect a shared commitment to public safety.
Governors who have repeatedly demanded improved security from the Federal Government should be prepared to demonstrate the same urgency in their own states by helping to advance the constitutional process rather than allowing political calculations to frustrate it.
The responsibility now rests squarely on the shoulders of the State Houses of Assembly to treat the pending State Police Bill as a matter of urgent national importance. Their members were elected to represent the interests of their constituents, and security remains one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. They should therefore schedule the necessary sittings, undertake thorough but timely deliberations, consult relevant stakeholders where appropriate and communicate their decisions without avoidable delay. The National Assembly also needs the required state approvals to complete the relevant stages of the constitutional amendment process. Every state that supports the reform must translate its position into formal legislative action. Nigerians should not have to wait indefinitely for their elected representatives to act on an issue that directly affects their safety and livelihoods.
Ultimately, the pending State Police Bill presents Nigeria’s political leadership with an opportunity to demonstrate that national security takes precedence over partisan interests and electoral ambitions. Members of the State Houses of Assembly must realise that this is the time to act, not to postpone, politicise or frustrate a reform whose potential benefits deserve serious consideration. The four states that have reportedly approved the amendment have taken an important step, but their efforts will not be sufficient without the participation of at least 20 additional state legislatures. History will judge the present generation of lawmakers not merely by the speeches they deliver about insecurity, but by the decisions they take to address it. The message is clear: the State Police Bill must not be sacrificed on the altar of legislative complacency. Nigeria’s security situation demands urgency, responsibility and decisive action from every state legislature.
Obi writes from Obosi, Anambra State