Re-centring security, responsibility, and secular duty in Nigeria’s state police debate

Nigeria’s debate about state policing has degenerated to the usual but worrying stage where the immediate need to secure lives is overshadowed by calculations about the 2027 elections. Lives are still being wasted through killings, abductions, and communal conflicts while national energy is consumed by horse-trading, endorsements, and permutations of power. This drift has to be corrected. Citizens must insist that the fundamental mandate of governance, the protection of life and property, cannot be made secondary to electoral timetables.

Arguments against state police are valid and do warrant consideration but should be treated with intellectual honesty and moral clarity. Some within the federal security apparatus claim decentralisation will fracture command structures and jeopardise intelligence cooperation. Governors, they warn, could misuse state police against their opponents and entrench local authoritarianism. Labour and civil society groups express concern about funding disparities, varied training quality, and the creation of tiered security regimes (first-class and second-class states, presumably). History does offer relevant parallels; pre-military regional police force structures sometimes resembled ethnic and political divisions. These points cannot be ignored.

However, none of the objections to state police justifies doing nothing while citizens are massacred. The current centralised system, headed by the Nigerian Police Force, is visibly overstretched. In the current security environment, with threats being local, dynamic, and tied to community structures, a system requiring quick response and trust demands proximity – something a single, centre-driven structure struggles to provide nationwide. The resultant outcome is a widening disconnect between the realities of insecurity and the capacity to contain them.

“If state governments were to take on policing duties, then the onus for accountability should be non-negotiable. In the framework of Uplifting Leadership, security votes would be budgeted, subject to legislative oversight and measurable performance metrics.”

The concept in my Uplifting Leadership reformulates the question as one not of ‘Is state police risky?’ But rather, ‘How can it be designed in a manner that manages risk and saves lives?’ State police are not the solution, but they should be a layer within a multi-tiered structure. Well-designed, they empower local intelligence gathering, hasten responses, and build stronger community ties. They can allow federal agencies to concentrate on interstate crime, terrorism, and specialised investigations, while state police focus on crime prevention and community relations. They also provide opportunities for innovation. States can pilot approaches that, if successful, will become national standards.

Most importantly, accountability has to accompany resources. For years, governors have spent considerable funds called ‘security votes’, often with insufficient transparency and undefined outcomes. If state governments were to take on policing duties, then the onus for accountability should be non-negotiable. In the framework of Uplifting Leadership, security votes would be budgeted, subject to legislative oversight and measurable performance metrics. The employment and promotion of personnel would be managed by an independent state police service commission and shielded from political interference; national benchmarks would be in place to ensure basic minimum standards. Expenditure would be audited, operations documented, and results reported. Authority without responsibility is mere licence.

The implementation of safeguards is feasible. Constitutional checks and national standards could define requirements for training, the use of force and data privacy. Independent civilian bodies could investigate complaints and publicise their findings. Mechanisms for cooperation between state and federal police forces would be necessary; joint operations and data sharing protocols would bolster the efforts of both entities. Accelerated judicial processes could address rights violations and ensure accountability. This way, decentralisation becomes a structured and not an arbitrary system.

A cornerstone of the proposed structure is secularism. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s security issues have been consistently marred by ethnic and religious tensions, fuelling cycles of vengeance. Nigeria needs a police force that operates on constitutionally secular principles, is politically impartial and professional, and resistant to sectarian pressures. Its personnel should be recruited to reflect diversity but not to favour cronyism or a particular ethnic group; its operations should be driven by a needs-based assessment rather than identity politics; its application of force and the law must be even-handed. When the security forces seem aligned with specific ethnic or religious groups, they can no longer be viewed as neutral arbiters and can be incorporated into existing conflicts. The legitimacy of state police will depend on their visible impartiality.

The ongoing focus on the 2027 elections, therefore, diverts attention from the immediate and pressing needs of citizens. Elections are a feature of any democracy, but they should not replace the act of governing. With each passing day, reform is delayed, more citizens are put at risk, more trust is eroded, and impunity is normalised. Uplifting leadership redirects the discourse back to tangible, positive outcomes that can be realised in the immediate present: secure communities, faster and better responses, reliable deterrence and accountable institutions.

This discourse is not calling for a hasty decentralisation of powers. It is advocating for a careful and deliberate approach to reform that acknowledges the complexities in Nigeria and utilises a multi-layered solution. The creation of a state police system, carefully designed with stringent safeguards, open funding mechanisms and a commitment to secular, rights-based procedures, will bridge the gap between the prevalent levels of insecurity and the capacity to mitigate it. It is intended to hold state governors accountable and will encourage citizens to demand more from their leaders.

Ultimately, the true measure of any leadership is not the ability to craft persuasive arguments but the number of lives it has protected. Nigeria does not have the luxury of debate that revolves aimlessly while its communities are consumed by violence. The challenge before our leaders is clear: they must put the value of citizen life above all other considerations, devise effective institutions that reach every community in the country and ensure that political ambition is never prioritised over the duty to safeguard the nation.

 

Babs Olugbemi, FCCA, is the Chief Vision Officer at Mentoras Leadership Limited and the founder of Positive Growth Africa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 07064176953 or on Twitter @Successbabs.