The recent passage of the State Police Bill by the Senate has reignited debate over Nigeria’s security architecture, with concerns emerging over a provision that allows the President to temporarily assume operational control of a state’s police service under certain circumstances.
The proposed constitutional amendment, which is awaiting approval by at least 24 state Houses of Assembly, seeks to establish state police after years of calls for decentralised policing to address Nigeria’s growing security challenges.
Supporters argue that state police will enable faster responses to local security threats, improve intelligence gathering and allow communities to benefit from policing that is more familiar with local realities.
However, attention has shifted to a section of the bill that empowers the President to authorise federal intervention in a State Police Service where there is an actual or imminent breakdown of public order, a threat to national security, widespread human rights violations, electoral intimidation, or where a state police command becomes incapable of carrying out its responsibilities.
Under the proposal, such intervention must be authorised in writing by the President, with reasons provided and relevant institutions, including the National Assembly, the affected governor, the State House of Assembly and the National Police Council, duly notified. The provision also allows for judicial review.
Despite these safeguards, legal and constitutional analysts have raised questions over whether the provision could concentrate excessive authority in the office of the President, potentially undermining the autonomy that state police is intended to provide.
The debate has also drawn comparisons with an earlier 2022 proposal by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, which reportedly favoured federal assistance during emergencies but required the approval of the National Police Council rather than granting direct takeover powers to the President.
Another issue highlighted by analysts is the absence of clear constitutional provisions assigning responsibility for election security between the proposed Federal Police Service and State Police Services.
While the bill permits federal intervention where a state police command is allegedly used for electoral intimidation or political persecution, it does not clearly specify which police service would take the lead in securing elections or how operational conflicts would be resolved if both agencies are deployed simultaneously.
Observers have warned that without clear constitutional guidelines, overlapping responsibilities between federal and state police authorities could create confusion during elections and other politically sensitive situations.
The ongoing debate has underscored the importance of balancing decentralised policing with strong constitutional safeguards capable of preventing abuse by both state and federal authorities while strengthening public security across the country.
