NIGERIA may be on the verge of one of the most significant security reforms since the return to democratic rule in 1999, following the passage of a constitutional amendment bill by the House of Representatives seeking to establish state police across the federation.
The proposal, which has also scaled second reading in the Senate, aims to create a dual policing system made up of the Federal Police and State Police as part of efforts to tackle the worsening security challenges confronting the country.
In this Weekend Features, News Point Nigeria examines and dissects the proposed State Police Bill, its key provisions, the safeguards built into it, the concerns raised by critics, the legislative hurdles it must still cross, and what the reform could mean for Nigeria’s security architecture.
The bill seeks to amend several sections of the 1999 Constitution and provides a comprehensive framework for the creation, funding, regulation, oversight and operation of state police services while retaining the Federal Police as a national institution.
Among its far-reaching provisions, the proposal grants governors powers to appoint state commissioners of police, creates State Police Service Commissions, limits federal interference in state policing, and allows the Federal Government to provide grants and financial assistance to state police formations.
The renewed push for state police comes amid rising insecurity across the country, including terrorism, insurgency, banditry, mass abductions, farmer-herder clashes, cultism, armed robbery, pipeline vandalism and emerging cyber-related crimes.
Nigeria moved a step closer to having state police on Thursday when the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the constitutional amendment bill.
The legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Provide for the Establishment of State Police and for Related Matters (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026,” was adopted during consideration at the Committee of the Whole.
The bill sailed through after lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in its favour following the presentation of the report by the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the House Committee on Constitution Review, Benjamin Kalu.
A manual voting process showed that 289 lawmakers supported the proposal.
At the Senate, the reform proposal also recorded progress as the constitutional amendment bill establishing state police scaled second reading.
Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, subsequently referred the bill to the Senate Ad-hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution for further legislative action.
Presenting the general principles of the bill, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele argued that Nigeria’s current centralised policing system has become overstretched amid growing security threats and requires urgent reform.
According to him, the proposal seeks to modernise Nigeria’s security architecture by creating distinct federal and state policing structures.
At the heart of the amendment is a proposed alteration of Section 214 of the Constitution.
The section provides that the National Assembly shall prescribe the structure, organisation, administration and powers of the Federal Police while also establishing guidelines and minimum standards for the creation of State Police.
Under the proposal, a state police service will only become operational after a State House of Assembly passes an enabling law and the proposed force is certified as meeting nationally prescribed standards.
In practical terms, this means governors will not enjoy unrestricted powers to establish police formations.
States will first have to comply with nationally prescribed benchmarks before launching operations, thereby creating uniform standards across the federation.
The bill makes it clear that the establishment of state police will not abolish the Nigeria Police Force.
Instead, Nigeria will operate a dual policing arrangement in which Federal Police and State Police coexist, similar to systems found in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany.
Even after state police become operational, the Federal Police will continue to perform federal policing functions and may assist state police whenever necessary.
The Federal Police will also retain responsibility for maintaining public security throughout the federation as provided by law.
One of the most debated aspects of the bill relates to federal involvement in state policing.
Under Section 214(6), the Federal Police cannot interfere in the operations or internal security affairs of a state except under limited circumstances.
Such situations include:
A complete breakdown of law and order.
A request for intervention by a governor.
Cases where a state police service becomes ineffective due to administrative, financial or operational challenges.
Even in those situations, federal intervention cannot occur automatically.
Approval must first be obtained from the National Police Council.
Supporters of the bill say this provision prevents arbitrary federal control while ensuring safeguards exist in the event of a security emergency.
Governors, Commissioners and Command Structure
Section 215 provides that every State Police Service shall be headed by a Commissioner of Police appointed by the governor on the advice of the National Police Council and subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.
Governors will also be empowered to issue lawful directives relating to public safety and the maintenance of law and order.
However, where a commissioner believes such directives are unlawful or inconsistent with professional policing standards, the matter may be referred to the National Police Council.
The council’s decision will be final.
The provision is designed to balance executive authority with institutional safeguards against political abuse.
At the federal level, the existing structure remains largely intact.
The President will continue to appoint the Inspector-General of Police on the advice of the National Police Council and subject to confirmation by the National Assembly.
The IGP will remain the head of the Federal Police and maintain command over federal contingents stationed across the country.
The bill also seeks to insulate police leadership from political pressure.
Section 216 stipulates that the Inspector-General of Police may only be removed on grounds such as grave misconduct, breach of regulations, fraud-related convictions, bankruptcy or mental incapacity.
Such removal must be recommended by the National Police Council and approved by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.
Similarly, a State Commissioner of Police may only be removed by a governor following the recommendation of the National Police Council and with the approval of two-thirds of the State House of Assembly.
The intention is to prevent arbitrary dismissals and preserve professional independence.
Recognising the financial burden associated with policing, Section 216A empowers the Federal Government to provide grants and aid to state police formations.
Such assistance must be recommended by the National Police Council and approved by the National Assembly.
The provision acknowledges concerns that some states may struggle to finance police operations independently.
It also creates a mechanism through which federal support can be provided without undermining the autonomy of state police services.
The amendment grants State Houses of Assembly powers to enact laws relating to the organisation, funding and oversight of their police services.
However, states cannot prescribe standards below the minimum requirements established by the National Assembly.
They may, however, adopt higher standards if they choose.
The bill further states that no Act of the National Assembly shall confer routine powers of command, deployment, appointment, transfer, suspension or disciplinary control over state police officers on any federal authority.
Supporters say this provision is essential to preserving state police autonomy and preventing federal oversight from evolving into routine operational control.
The proposal also seeks to replace the Nigeria Police Council with an expanded National Police Council.
Its membership will include representatives of the Federal Police, state attorneys-general, retired senior police officers, the National Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission, Nigerian Labour Congress, Nigerian Bar Association, Nigerian Union of Journalists and traditional rulers.
The council will supervise both federal and state police within constitutional limits.
The expanded structure is intended to broaden representation, improve civilian oversight and reduce concentration of power within a few institutions.
Another major innovation is the creation of State Police Service Commissions under Section 197.
The commissions will include representatives of the NHRC, Public Complaints Commission, NLC, NBA, NUJ, traditional rulers and retired police officers.
They will recommend candidates for appointment as commissioners of police and exercise disciplinary powers over officers below the rank of assistant commissioner.
Each commission must submit three qualified candidates to the National Police Council whenever a commissioner is to be appointed.
Supporters argue that this creates multiple layers of accountability and prevents excessive concentration of power in the hands of governors.
Modern Policing Powers
The amendment also permits state police services to use light arms for policing purposes.
It further grants them access to fingerprints, biometric databases, forensic records and criminal information systems in accordance with federal laws.
These provisions are designed to support modern intelligence-led policing while preserving national coordination in criminal investigations and record management.
Advocates argue that policing is most effective when it is locally grounded.
Senator Bamidele noted that officers familiar with local languages, terrain, culture and social structures are often better positioned to gather intelligence and respond quickly to threats.
Supporters also believe state police will reduce pressure on the Nigeria Police Force, enabling it to focus more effectively on interstate crimes, terrorism, organised criminal networks, cybercrime and protection of critical national assets.
Senators who participated in the debate largely supported the proposal, describing it as a necessary response to Nigeria’s growing insecurity and the increasing reliance on vigilante groups.
Senate Chief Whip, Senator Tahir Monguno, argued that the reform would provide a legal framework for regulating existing sub-national security arrangements while improving accountability.
Despite widespread support, not everyone is convinced.
Senator Adamu Aliero raised concerns about constitutional and operational challenges, warning that Nigeria’s police manpower deficit may remain a problem even after structural reforms.
He noted that with fewer than 400,000 police officers nationwide, capacity gaps would likely persist.
Security expert Patrick Agbambu also cautioned against expecting immediate results.
According to him, state police raises fundamental questions about funding, manpower, equipment and administrative capacity.
“I don’t think it is a good thing for now. It is something that should have been gradually prepared for,” he said.
Agbambu questioned whether many states possess the financial capacity to sustain police forces.
“Which state in Nigeria can effectively fund a police force as we speak? Even in the United States, many states struggle with police funding. We need to consider the financial implications carefully,” he argued.
He also expressed fears that political interference could become a major challenge given the evolving nature of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
The debate over state police is not new.
Before the military takeover of 1966, Nigeria operated decentralised policing through Native Authority Police and regional police formations alongside the central Nigeria Police Force.
However, concerns emerged during the First Republic that regional police structures were sometimes used against political opponents.
Following the January 1966 coup and subsequent military rule, policing became centralised under federal authority.
This arrangement was later entrenched in Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which established a single Nigeria Police Force and prohibited the creation of other police forces.
Yet calls for decentralised policing never disappeared.
The issue resurfaced prominently during the 2014 National Conference convened by former President Goodluck Jonathan, where delegates recommended state police as part of broader restructuring proposals.
Rising insecurity over the years further strengthened demands for reform.
The emergence of regional security outfits such as Amotekun and Ebubeagu also added momentum to the conversation.
Today, the debate has returned to the forefront under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, with the Presidency and many governors openly supporting constitutional amendments to allow states establish their own police services.
The proposal has even attracted international attention.
United States Congressman Riley Moore welcomed the House’s passage of the bill.
In a post on X, Moore described the reform as an important step toward improving security and protecting vulnerable communities.
He said he had repeatedly raised the issue with Nigerian officials, including First Lady Oluremi Tinubu, and praised President Tinubu for supporting the legislation.
What Happens Next?
Despite the momentum, the bill remains some distance from becoming law.
Under the constitutional amendment process, the Senate must first approve the proposal.
After that, it must be transmitted to the 36 State Houses of Assembly.
For the amendment to proceed, at least 24 states—two-thirds of the federation—must vote in its favour.
Once that hurdle is crossed, the bill will return to the National Assembly before being transmitted to the President for assent.
Even if signed into law, states wishing to establish police services must still pass their own enabling legislation and satisfy nationally prescribed standards before operations can begin.
The House of Representatives’ approval and the Senate’s progress represent significant milestones in a debate that has shaped Nigeria’s security discourse for decades.
Whether state police ultimately becomes the game-changing solution many supporters envision—or whether concerns over funding, political interference and capacity prove justified—remains to be seen.
What is clear, however, is that Nigeria is now closer than ever before to fundamentally reshaping its policing structure in pursuit of a more effective response to the country’s persistent security challenges.