State Police: Political theatrics or national necessity?

The biggest criticism of the fuel subsidy removal and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market has never been about the intrinsic merits of the policies themselves, but about their sequencing, execution, and the government’s apparent inability to cushion their socioeconomic consequences.

So, bold and courageous policies, but grossly inadequate preparation

In the same vein, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, fought for by the Federal Government to grant fiscal autonomy to the local governments, albeit within limited constitutional latitude, generated so much buzz and applause for the government. But again, it became a mere paper giant as the entire process was circumvented and hijacked by the state governors, creating deeper opacity in the financial architecture of the councils.

President Tinubu’s capacity to dare the socio-political status quo, enunciate, and propagate sound, transformative, and impactful reforms is not in doubt. However, the growing concern over poor consequence management, given the visible gaps in interrogating and aligning critical elements that would elicit predictable and desirable outcomes, has become the bane of most of the administration’s reform journeys.

So, at every turn the government unveils an inarguably profound programme or policy, there is suspicion that it is another claptrap, another exercise in playing to the gallery. This brings us to the sad commentary surrounding the state police reforms currently on the front burner. Sadly, they are dismissed by sceptics as another round of grandstanding for political mileage as we draw closer to the 2027 presidential election.

Understandably, the coffee indeed smells familiar because it evokes an unpleasant sense of nostalgia from when the late President Buhari attempted a similar restructuring agenda a few months before seeking re-election for a second term.

That playbook was midwifed by a committee headed by Mallam El-Rufai, with state policing as one of the top items on the menu. That administration postured that devolution of power was non-negotiable, and the debate around state policing was revved up. It was pushed to a crescendo but was pretentiously jettisoned as being too complicated, given the proximity of the general election.

But alas, it was never revisited after the elections. Instead, a phoney, haphazard community policing alternative was shoved down our throats, with no sincerity of purpose to see it through, hence its natural demise.

Here we are on the verge of another major election cycle, and state policing has once again become the talk of the nation. Again, its exigency, given the incessant and unrelenting incursions and attacks by terrorists and bandits spreading across the length and breadth of the country, especially in rural communities, has called into question the humongous federal policing structure and underscored the imperative for reform.

Time and again, this elephant-sized Nigeria Police Force has unquestionably trudged heavily, weakening its response time and its ability to swiftly counter the fluid and highly mobile nature of insurgents and criminal gangs.

For objective critics, state police comes as a critical silver bullet to push back the wave of insecurity in the country. Yet, the devil is in the details, and these must be clearly resolved so that we do not create an even bigger problem through the potential reckless tendencies of politicians.

While many have lauded the government for its bold moves and noteworthy intentions, some wonder why the process was not subjected to robust public hearings, however brief. Were there hidden clauses, as was alleged on other occasions when such clandestine legislative moves were made, like the Electoral Bill that was passed amid many unanswered questions?

This subjects even the best intentions of the government to public suspicion and ridicule because, when government actions are shrouded in secrecy, politicians are often assumed to be up to no good.

However, moving forward, without belabouring the array of opinions in the court of public discourse, the major concerns of Nigerians across the board remain the likelihood of flagrant abuse by governors and politicians against opponents or the opposition; an uneven or possibly inadequate funding structure to guarantee an effective and efficient policing architecture at the subnational level; the risk of conflicting jurisdictions between the federal and state police; and several other constitutional and operational concerns.

In essence, the bill is not merely about creating another police force. It proposes a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s security governance, seeking to balance decentralised policing with national oversight. Whether it becomes a transformative security reform or a source of new political and constitutional tensions will depend largely on its implementation and the strength of the safeguards ultimately embedded in the law.

Without a comprehensive implementation framework, measurable milestones, and sustained political commitment, the state police campaign could amount to little more than political theatre—a cosmetic restructuring of Nigeria’s security architecture rather than the transformative overhaul its proponents promise.

If state police disappear from the national conversation the moment the ballots are counted, Nigerians will know that the debate was never about security—it was about politics.