₦airaland Forum

It has been reported that the Inspector-General of Police has submitted a roadmap for the implementation of “State Police.”

At first glance, the roadmap appears comprehensive. It outlines familiar bureaucratic elements, to wit: decentralization, oversight mechanisms, accountability frameworks, body cameras, ombudsmen, and the now-standard language of “community policing.”

But these are procedural details.

For the Yoruba Referendum Committee, the central question is far more fundamental: what is the true purpose, the raison d’être of State Police?

According to the roadmap, a dual structure is proposed: a Federal Police Service responsible for national security, terrorism, interstate crime, and protection of federal assets while State Police formations are limited to localized crimes such as armed robbery, homicide, domestic violence, and community-level intelligence gathering.

This distinction is revealing and deeply problematic.

For years, the primary justification for State Police has been the urgent need to confront terrorism and banditry-the most existential threats to lives, communities, and national stability. Indeed, many advocates presented State Police as a step toward True Federalism, where Federating units would possess the authority and capacity to secure themselves.

Yet, under this roadmap, that core responsibility is explicitly removed.

Terrorism-the very reason State Police gained traction, is now reserved exclusively for a centralized Federal Police. What remains for State Police is a narrow, secondary role.

What, then, is being proposed is no longer State Police in any meaningful Federal sense. It is a shadow structure: devolved in form, but hollow in substance.

Worse still, this arrangement does not advance Federalism; it actively undermines it.

Nigeria’s existing security architecture has already demonstrated its inability to effectively combat terrorism.

This reality was underscored recently when the Chief of Defense Staff, speaking at the Nigerian Armed Forces’ inaugural lecture in Abuja, advocated for the rehabilitation of “repentant terrorists”-a policy that has been in place since at least 2015, yet has yielded no measurable reduction in terrorist activity.

And yet, this same central structure, already overstretched and ineffective, is now to retain exclusive control over the most critical security function.

This is not reform.

It is repetition.

The roadmap also proposes a 60-month (five-year) phased implementation, beginning with Constitutional amendments.

This raises further concerns.

First, it ignores the existence of multiple state-level security initiatives such as Amotekun which are already attempting, within constraints, to fill the security vacuum. A five-year transition plan that fails to integrate or meaningfully empower these existing structures merely prolongs the current dysfunction.

Second, the timeline contradicts repeated assurances by the present administration that political restructuring would follow economic reforms. Even under the most generous assumptions, including a second presidential term, the proposed timeline extends beyond the practical window for implementation.

Third, the roadmap’s reliance on Constitutional amendments is itself questionable. Since 1999, Nigeria’s Constitution has undergone continuous “alterations,” often without addressing its foundational defects. If amendments can be made in the first year, they can just as easily be reversed or diluted in subsequent years, especially beyond the tenure of the current administration.

In effect, the process lacks permanence, legitimacy, and coherence.

Another critical issue arises from the proposal that up to 60% of existing police personnel [/b]would transition into State Police structures.

This immediately raises the question: [b]what becomes of existing regional security outfits?

Within the logic of the roadmap, such formations are either:
● Absorbed into a loosely defined “community policing” framework; or
● Rendered redundant.

Neither option strengthens security. Both dilute initiatives.

More fundamentally, the proposed funding model, allocating 3% of the Federation Account to State Police reveals the underlying contradiction.

Rather than empowering states, this arrangement deepens their dependence on the Centre.

State Police, under such a structure, would not be autonomous. They would function as extensions of a centralized fiscal system which will be no different from current state governments whose survival depends on federal allocations.

This is not decentralization.

It is centralization by another name.

We have seen this pattern before.

Local Government allocations are controlled by the Centre.

Development Commissions are centrally funded and directed.

Each “reform” promises autonomy but delivers dependence
.
The inevitable consequence is predictable: an intensified struggle to control the Centre, since that is where real power resides.

This is the contradiction at the heart of incremental, piecemeal approaches to Federalism. Instead of moving Nigeria toward genuine decentralization, they entrench the very centralization they claim to dismantle.

This moment, therefore, demands clarity.

Nigeria’s security crisis cannot be solved by administrative rearrangements within a structurally defective system. It requires a fundamental rethinking of the Constitutional order.

This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee continues to advocate Nationality Referendums as the only credible pathway forward.

For the Yoruba, this will be the “Yoruba Referendum”

A Referendum is not merely a political exercise. It is the basis of legitimacy, validity, and legality in Constitution-making. It stands in stark contrast to the serial amendments that have characterized Nigeria’s constitutional history since 1999.

Amendments that tinker at the edges while leaving the core untouched.

In this regard, the Committee aligns with the position advanced by Chief Wole Olanipekun, who has called on the National Assembly to suspend its ongoing amendment process and instead pursue the creation of an Autochthonous Constitution as a foundational document derived from the will of the people through Referendums.

This is the path to a new social order.

It is also the path to meaningful security.

As outlined in the Annexure [/b]to the Draft Referendum Bill already submitted to the Houses of Assembly in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo States, the proposed framework is clear:

● Judicial authority resides within the Region, with a structured hierarchy of courts up to a Regional Supreme Court.
● Governance is organized at regional and provincial levels, ensuring proximity and accountability.
● Crucially, the Region maintains its [b]own internal security system.

This is not theoretical.

It is a coherent institutional framework that directly addresses the failures of the current system.

Security, in this model, is not outsourced to distant authorities. It is rooted in the community, legitimized by the people, and enforced through institutions that are accountable to them.

This is what Federalism looks like in practice.

The debate on State Police, as currently framed, is therefore a distraction.

It offers the appearance of reform without its substance.

It substitutes structure with procedure.

It avoids the central question: who truly holds power over security-the people, or a distant Centre?

Until that question is answered honestly, Nigeria will continue to cycle through reforms that change nothing.

The time has come to move beyond incrementalism.

The time has come to confront the structural reality.

And the time has come to return sovereignty to the people through the Referendum, through legitimacy, and through a Constitution that reflects their will.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

We need ti start from somewhere.....terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world,the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity ro do so or protecting the people against them,the primary essence of policing is maintaining law and other.

Their has to be a multi layered policing structure that all work in synergy to drive the engine of security.....the community based policing structure will also be integrated.

Interstate crimes,robbery,smuggling,financial crimes,treason,terrorism all fall within the ambit of federal crimes.

Nigeria is grossly under policed far below the UN recommendation of ratio 1:450.....the estimated police strength we have is 371k for a population of about 200m,thats about 1 police to 539 citizens.

There is no way the federal police will need that many men in its employ if state police takes effect,so its normal some of them can be seconded to individual states of their origin and state govts should be ready to fund and equipments them in collaboration with the fg.

Lithiumite:
We need ti start from somewhere.....terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world,the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity ro do so or protecting the people against them,the primary essence of policing is maintaining law and other.

Their has to be a multi layered policing structure that all work in synergy to drive the engine of security.....the community based policing structure will also be integrated.

Interstate crimes,robbery,smuggling,financial crimes,treason,terrorism all fall within the ambit of federal crimes.

Nigeria is grossly under policed far below the UN recommendation of ratio 1:450.....the estimated police strength we have is 371k for a population of about 200m,thats about 1 police to 539 citizens.

There is no way the federal police will need that many men in its employ if state police takes effect, so its normal some of them can be seconded to individual states of their origin and state govts should be ready to fund and equipments them in collaboration with the fg.

"Starting from somewhere" is not the problem. The problem is in the "where"

If "the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity to do so"--- how will Borno have the capacity when it did not create the mechanism? Borno can only do so if it created the policing system itself. That is not the case. And this goes for all states.

If "terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world"---(a) everywhere in the world is not a federal (b) in Federal societies, the crime is investigated by all levels of policing, as a "Federal crime" and not exclusively restricted to Federal police as it is being suggested in this instance.
If "Nigeria is grossly underpoliced"--the solution is not in restricting the "state police" to a subordinate level.

We keep saying the "states should fund this and that because they are getting more allocations.

Yet, the logical way for this to happen is for the states to have control over their resources so they can effectively address their concerns. Not by the center doling out allocations, deciding the type of security, deciding the number of local governments.

In short, the center decides everything and then tells the states to manage them. Tat is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, hence the need for a new Constitution.

ooduapathfinder:
"Starting from somewhere" is not the problem. The problem is in the "where"

If "the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity to do so"--- how will Borno have the capacity when it did not create the mechanism? Borno can only do so if it created the policing system itself. That is not the case. And this goes for all states.

If "terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world"---(a) everywhere in the world is not a federal (b) in Federal societies, the crime is investigated by all levels of policing, as a "Federal crime" and not exclusively restricted to Federal police as it is being suggested in this instance.
If "Nigeria is grossly underpoliced"--the solution is not in restricting the "state police" to a subordinate level.

We keep saying the "states should fund this and that because they are getting more allocations.

Yet, the logical way for this to happen is for the states to have control over their resources so they can effectively address their concerns. Not by the center doling out allocations, deciding the type of security, deciding the number of local governments.

In short, the center decides everything and then tells the states to manage them. Tat is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, hence the need for a new Constitution.

What resources is a state like osun contributing to the country or Gombe state?

State police in a federal system isn't inferior tobthe federal but the latter is only above in hierarchy....the fbi is above the LAPD or NYPD fir instance......if someone steals your car and drives into ogun state, lagos police can't go and get it for you over there simply for lack of jurisdiction,it will have to be refered to the federal police.

The major concern should be funding,how will indigent states be able to fund their respective policing requirements, thats the real elephant in the room that no one is talking about......I feel there is no way states can take off without commensurate support from the federal govt and local govts also have to have a stake also the citizens which in most cases have been funding some independent security architecture currently would also have to integrate all this into this arrangement.

Terrorism is a crime against the entire country and not the state it is taking place....it has to be combated by both the state police when established and the federal but prosecution and adjudication can only be done at the federal level.