Governors get powers to appoint commissioners under state police bill

…FG retains oversight

The Senate’s passage of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, has handed governors the constitutional power to appoint state commissioners of police.

However, the legislation places significant safeguards around those appointments and preserves extensive federal powers over policing and national security.

The Senate on Wednesday passed the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, paving the way for the establishment of State Police Services across the federation and bringing the country closer than ever to one of the most far-reaching security reforms since the return to democratic rule in 1999.

One of the most notable provisions of the bill is that governors will appoint State Commissioners of Police, ending concerns that states would have no control over their police leadership.

But the appointment power is not absolute.

Under the legislation, a commissioner must first be recommended by the National Police Council and confirmed by the State House of Assembly before being appointed by the governor.

The bill equally limits governors’ powers to remove commissioners.

According to the legislation, a commissioner “shall not be suspended or removed except for stated cause, in accordance with a fair hearing, on the recommendation of the National Police Council and subject to approval by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all members of the House of Assembly.”

The provision is intended to shield commissioners from arbitrary removal while ensuring accountability through both federal and state institutions.

Although governors will appoint commissioners and may issue policy directives relating to public safety and public order, the bill expressly prevents them from interfering in operational policing matters.

According to the legislation, no directive shall require “the arrest, detention, investigation, non-investigation, deployment or use of force against any named person, political party, association or class of persons except in accordance with law.”

The bill further prohibits the use of police powers for “partisan, ethnic, religious, sectional or personal purpose” and bars police authorities from suppressing lawful political activities or discriminating against individuals or groups.

These provisions seek to address longstanding fears that governors could use state police against political opponents.

Despite creating state police services, the legislation leaves critical national security functions under federal control.

Under the new arrangement, the Federal Police Service will continue to handle federal laws, protection of federal institutions and assets, policing of the Federal Capital Territory, and crimes involving “inter-State, international, organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime, arms-trafficking, national-security or other federal dimensions.”

Read also: Senate introduces strict safeguards against state police abuse

State Police Services, on the other hand, will be responsible for “the enforcement of laws of the State, the maintenance of public safety and public order, the prevention and detection of offences within its policing competence, the protection of life and property.”

The bill also grants the Federal Government authority to intervene in states under specified circumstances.

According to the legislation, the Federal Police Service may step in where there is “an actual or imminent breakdown of public order or public safety which the State Police Service is unable or unwilling to contain.”

Federal intervention may also occur where a governor requests assistance, where a State Police Service becomes incapable of functioning because of administrative or financial collapse, or where there is evidence of systematic violations of fundamental human rights.

The legislation specifically allows intervention where state police are being used for “partisan or electoral intimidation, ethnic, religious or sectional persecution.”

Federal authorities may further intervene where there exists “a substantial threat to national security, the sovereignty or integrity of the Federation.”

To prevent abuse of those powers, the bill provides that intervention must be “temporary, necessary, proportionate and limited to the territory, functions and period required.”

It further states that the President must authorise any intervention in writing, clearly stating the grounds, territorial scope, functions and duration.

“Notice must then be sent within forty-eight hours to the governor, the Speaker of the State House of Assembly, the National Police Council and the National Assembly,” the bill states.

Most importantly, “the legality, scope, duration and conduct” of such intervention shall be subject to judicial review.

The legislation does not establish a constitutional funding pool for state police.

Instead, responsibility for funding and administration rests with state governments.

The key provision contained in Paragraph 20B(2) states that, “A House of Assembly of a State may make laws for the establishment, administration, funding, and oversight of a State Police Service for that State, subject to this Constitution and to any Act of the National Assembly.”

This means states wishing to establish police services must bear the financial burden of running them.

The bill also prevents the automatic establishment of state police.

Read also: Senate passes State Police bill after clause-by-clause vote

It provides that “No State Police Service shall commence operational policing unless it has been established by a Law of the House of Assembly of the State and certified as meeting national minimum standards.”

Until those conditions are met, the Federal Police Service will continue to carry out policing functions within affected states.

The National Assembly is also empowered to prescribe minimum national standards covering recruitment, vetting, training, certification, promotions, discipline, conduct, use of force, firearms management, criminal information systems and accountability mechanisms.

While states may adopt standards higher than the national minimum, they cannot operate below it.

The legislation addresses concerns over the future of regional and local security outfits.

According to the bill, “No existing State, local, community, vigilante, neighbourhood, traffic or other security outfit shall, by reason only of this Act, become a State Police Service or exercise police powers or bear firearms unless authorised.”

This means existing organisations such as vigilante groups and neighbourhood watches will require fresh legal authorisation before assuming police powers.

Leading debate on the bill, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele described the proposal as “one of the most significant constitutional reforms in our nation’s democratic evolution.”

“This important bill is an executive bill transmitted by Mr President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, seeking to alter the constitution to provide for the establishment of State Police Services and other related matters,” Bamidele said.

He argued that the current centralised policing structure has struggled to cope with modern security challenges.

“The framers of the 1999 Constitution established a single and centrally controlled police force for the Federation.

“While that arrangement may have served the country at a particular stage of our national existence, the realities of contemporary Nigeria have exposed significant challenges associated with a centralised policing architecture.”

Bamidele said rising incidents of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal conflicts, farmer-herder clashes, cybercrime and organised criminal networks had placed enormous pressure on the existing structure.

“The present structure often limits the ability of local authorities to respond swiftly and effectively to security challenges within their jurisdictions,” he said.

The passage marks the latest chapter in a debate that has spanned several National Assemblies. A similar proposal failed during the Eighth National Assembly after it was rejected by state Houses of Assembly despite securing passage at the federal legislature.

The issue resurfaced during the Ninth National Assembly but struggled to gain traction amid opposition from former President Muhammadu Buhari, who repeatedly warned that governors could deploy state police against political opponents.

However, worsening insecurity across the country eventually revived momentum for reform and paved the way for the executive bill now approved by the Senate.

“This bill is not merely a security reform; it is a constitutional response to the evolving realities of our nation,” Bamidele said.

“It seeks to balance local policing autonomy with national cohesion, accountability with operational effectiveness and federal oversight with state responsibility.”