Here’s the rewritten version in a fresh, original style without the source-style presentation.
Nigeria is on the verge of a major shift in its security structure as lawmakers consider the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, a proposal that would pave the way for the creation of State Police alongside the Federal Police.
For more than two decades, Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution has prohibited the establishment of any police force other than the Nigeria Police Force. The proposed amendment seeks to remove that restriction and replace it with a dual-policing system that clearly defines the responsibilities of both federal and state law enforcement agencies.
Under the proposal, the Federal Police would continue handling matters within the Federal Government’s constitutional jurisdiction, while State Police would be responsible for maintaining law and order within their respective states on issues falling under state authority.
The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) would remain exclusively under the control of the Federal Police, with State Police having no operational authority within Abuja.
Before any state can establish its own police force, the bill requires the State House of Assembly to pass the necessary legislation. In addition, the proposed force must be certified as meeting national minimum policing standards to be set through an Act of the National Assembly. Until certification is granted, the Federal Police will continue to provide security services in that state to avoid any gap in policing.
Although states may introduce standards that exceed the national benchmark, they cannot operate below the minimum requirements established by federal law.
The legislation also introduces a non-interference principle designed to protect the independence of State Police. Once operational, the Federal Police would generally be barred from interfering in a state’s internal security operations.
However, federal intervention would still be permitted under specific circumstances, including a complete breakdown of law and order, a formal request from a state governor, or situations where a State Police force becomes unable to function because of administrative or financial challenges. Any such intervention would require approval from the National Police Council.
The proposed framework establishes separate command structures for both police services. The Federal Police would remain under an Inspector-General of Police appointed by the President based on the advice of the National Police Council and confirmed by the National Assembly.
Each State Police would be led by a Commissioner of Police appointed by the governor, subject to the advice of the National Police Council and confirmation by the State House of Assembly.
The bill also provides a safeguard allowing a State Commissioner of Police to challenge any directive from a governor believed to be unlawful or inconsistent with established policing standards. In such cases, the National Police Council would make the final decision.
Removal procedures for both the Inspector-General and State Commissioners are also outlined, requiring recommendations from the National Police Council and approval by two-thirds of the relevant legislative body. Grounds for removal include serious misconduct, criminal conviction involving fraud or dishonesty, breach of the Police Act, bankruptcy, or mental incapacity.
To preserve the independence of State Police, the proposal states that while the National Assembly may legislate on policing standards, certification, accountability, firearms, use of force, and intergovernmental cooperation, it cannot exercise routine operational control over State Police personnel or management.
Funding remains one of the biggest unresolved issues in the proposed reform. The bill places primary financial responsibility on state governments, requiring each state to fund the establishment, administration, and oversight of its police force through state legislation.
Federal support would only come through grants or financial aid recommended by the National Police Council and approved by the National Assembly. However, the bill does not specify how grants would be allocated, the amount states could receive, or the conditions for eligibility.
Unlike the proposed constitutional amendment granting the Armed Forces automatic funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, State Police would not enjoy guaranteed federal financing. Instead, financial assistance would remain discretionary and subject to political and legislative approval.
Lawmakers have indicated that the funding model will receive further attention during the drafting of a new Police Act, which is expected to establish detailed rules on grants, accountability, certification standards, and implementation procedures.
Until that legislation is completed, concerns remain over how less financially capable states will sustain their own police forces, raising fears that wealthier states could establish fully operational services much earlier than others.
If passed, the constitutional amendment would represent one of the most significant security reforms since Nigeria returned to democratic rule, fundamentally reshaping the country’s policing system while leaving several financial and implementation questions to future legislation.
