ABUJA — President Bola Tinubu has formally asked the National Assembly to break the federal monopoly on policing, transmitting a bill to the House of Representatives seeking a constitutional pathway for state police.
The move, coming 18 months to the 2027 general elections, signals the most serious push yet to decentralize security in Nigeria.
The bill’s arrival in the House puts state police back on the legislative front burner after decades of debate.
Speaker Tajudeen Abbas confirmed receipt and said the proposal includes “safeguards to prevent governors from misusing” the new forces, directly addressing the biggest objection that has killed previous attempts.
The House is expected to refer it to committee for public hearings in the coming weeks.
In the Senate, there is no separate presidential transmission yet, but the chamber is already in a security-focused posture.
On Thursday the Senate confirmed a non-career ambassadorial nominee despite protests, passed an FRSC Amendment Bill that increased traffic fines to ₦100,000, and heard calls to channel SSB tax revenue to healthcare.
While the state police bill has not been read on the Senate floor, lawmakers from both APC and PDP have been vocal in support, citing rising kidnappings and banditry as proof the Nigeria Police Force is overstretched. Troops in Zamfara just rescued 13 kidnap victims, the latest reminder of the pressure on federal security agencies.
The proposed law seeks to amend the 1999 Constitution to allow the 36 states to establish, fund and control their own policing outfits alongside the federal force.
Under the framework being discussed, the Nigeria Police would retain jurisdiction over federal crimes, interstate crimes and borders, while State Police would handle crimes within state boundaries. Key details on funding, recruitment, training standards and disciplinary oversight are expected to be fleshed out during committee hearings.
What makes this attempt different is timing and political backing. Unlike past efforts that died in state assemblies, this bill has the president’s name on it at a moment when governors are demanding more tools ahead of 2027.
APC is already expecting more gubernatorial defections, and security has become a central campaign issue. Speaker Abbas’s early mention of safeguards suggests the House leadership knows it must sell the bill to skeptics who fear state governors could turn new police units into political militias.
That fear is the central battle line. Critics argue that without independent funding and a clear command structure, state police could worsen election violence rather than reduce it.
Proponents counter that centralized policing has failed to contain local crime and that governors, who bear the political cost of insecurity, must have commensurate authority. The Finance Ministry is meanwhile pushing to prove that federal reforms are working by tracking poverty and income data, but on the streets the demand is for immediate safety, not macro indicators.
For the bill to become law, both chambers must pass identical versions and secure a two-thirds vote in 24 of 36 state Houses of Assembly. That is where previous efforts collapsed.
With the House now in possession and the Senate signaling openness, the next 3 to 4 months will determine if Nigeria moves toward dual policing or remains with one federal force.
If passed in late 2026, states could begin setting up structures in early 2027, right as election campaigns peak. If it stalls, it risks becoming another campaign talking point.
For now, the bill has cleared its first hurdle: it is no longer an idea. It is a document on the floor of the House, with a president behind it and a country watching to see if the forest can be saved without poisoning it.
Diverse views on State Policing
The public opinion on establishing state policing in Nigeria is highly divided, blending a strong majority consensus for localized security with deep-seated fears of political abuse by state governors.
Following the Senate’s passage of the landmark Constitution Alteration Bill, the national discourse has shifted from if state policing will happen to how it will be implemented without collapsing into tyranny or financial ruin.
A clear majority of the public, including regional socio-cultural groups like Afenifere and Ohanaeze Ndigbo and state executives, strongly support decentralisation.
A June 2026 poll by NOIPolls revealed that 72% of adult Nigerians back the creation of State Police, with support peaking at 79% in the South-West.
Supporters argue that state police will understand local terrain, languages, and cultures better than federally deployed officers, drastically cutting emergency response times.
The relative performance of existing regional security initiatives like Amotekun (South-West) and various state forest guards has proven that localized structures can effectively bridge security gaps.
Governors often lament being titular “Chief Security Officers” while possessing zero operational control over the federal police. True state policing changes this dynamic.
The Critics: “The Fear of Democratic Backsliding”
Conversely, a vocal segment of civil society organizations, opposition politicians, and human rights activists view the bill with extreme skepticism.
The primary fear is that governors will weaponize state forces to crush political dissent, intimidate opposition parties during local elections, and silence critical journalists.
Critics worry that in ethnically or religiously diverse states, minority groups could face institutionalized profiling and harassment from dominant-group-controlled state police.
Many citizens wonder how states that struggle to pay the national minimum wage will effectively fund salaries, high-grade weaponry, and insurance for a full police force.
The Public Consensus on Safeguards
While the split is sharp, the public generally agrees on one thing which is that the success of state police hinges entirely on the strictness of constitutional safeguards.
The citizenry is actively demanding independent State Police Commissions, rigid federal oversight mechanisms, and absolute legal blockades that prevent governors from interfering with operational appointments and crackdowns.
