ANALYSIS: State police may alter balance of power between federal and state govts

Supporters argue that decentralising the police will bring security closer to the people, improve intelligence gathering and strengthen local responses to crime.

When President Bola Tinubu transmitted the state police constitutional amendment bill to the Senate, the debate largely revolved around insecurity, banditry and the inability of the Nigeria Police Force to police a country of over 200 million people effectively.

The Senate passed the bill after more than two-thirds of senators voted in support via a manual voting process in which they raised their hands. The House of Representatives had earlier passed the bill on 11 June before proceeding on a two-week recess.

The Senate is expected to transmit its version of the bill for concurrence or harmonisation if there are areas of difference before forwarding it to the state houses of assembly for approval. The bill must receive support from at least two-thirds (24) of the 36 state houses of assembly before it is sent to the president for assent.

Supporters argue that decentralising the police will bring security closer to the people, improve intelligence gathering and strengthen local responses to crime.

But beyond security concerns, it could fundamentally alter Nigeria’s political tradition, particularly the balance of power between the federal government and state governors during elections. State governments running their own police may significantly reduce the influence that the federal government or the ruling party traditionally exercises through the police during elections.

For decades, control of the Nigerian Police Force has been one of the strongest political instruments available to the party controlling the federal government. State police could change that equation.

Federal police and political power

Currently, the president appoints the Inspector-General of Police, while operational control rests with federal authorities. Commissioners of police in the states ultimately answer to Abuja rather than to governors.

Although governors are officially the “chief security officers” of their states, in reality, they possess little direct authority over the police and other federal security agencies. Governors frequently lament that they cannot issue orders to commissioners of police, even though they are held responsible by citizens whenever security breaches occur.

The same structure also gives federal administrations substantial influence over political developments across the country.

During elections, the deployment of police personnel, security operations, enforcement activities, and election-day movement restrictions is largely coordinated from Abuja, where the president runs the country.

Opposition politicians have repeatedly accused federal administrations of using security agencies to intimidate rivals, restrict political activities or influence electoral outcomes. Whether such allegations are proven or not, the perception that control of the police translates to political advantage has remained a recurring feature of Nigerian politics.

What the bill changes

The proposed constitutional amendment substantially alters the current arrangement.

The bill establishes state police services and state police service commissions.

Section 17 of the bill, which deals with appointment, command, direction and tenure, provides that while the Federal Police Service shall be headed by the Inspector-General of Police, the State Police Service shall be headed by a Commissioner of Police appointed by the governor of the state, subject to confirmation by the state’s House of Assembly.

Section 17(6) states that a state governor may give lawful written directives of a general policy nature to the commissioner of police of the state on matters relating to the maintenance of public safety and public order.

These sections give governors significant influence over state policing institutions, while state houses of assembly would provide legislative oversight.

The governors will also rely on Section 22, which prescribes the establishment of a State Police Service Commission to recruit personnel, oversee promotions and discipline officers within the state police structure.

The state government would also bear substantial responsibility for funding and administering the state police. Although the bill does not expressly state how governors would finance the police, the significant role assigned to state governments suggests that much of the funding would come from the states.

This arrangement effectively gives governors considerable influence over the appointment and supervision of commissioners of police in their respective states.

Under the proposed arrangement, the authority presently concentrated in Abuja would be shared with state governments. This redistribution of security powers could have profound electoral consequences.

The decline of federal dominance

Since 1999, federal incumbency has often carried enormous advantages. Control of security institutions has been one of those advantages.

A ruling party at the centre could deploy federal agencies nationwide, including in states controlled by opposition parties.

But state police may reduce that leverage.

If governors have control over policing institutions within their states, they may become less dependent on federal security structures.

A governor whose political interests conflict with those of the ruling party at the centre may rely on his police to resist perceived federal interference, especially during elections.

In practical terms, a governor may challenge the dominance of federal security agencies during elections if state police authorities answer primarily to the state government.

With this, there would be a more competitive political environment in states controlled by opposition parties.

Opposition states may become harder to penetrate

Opposition parties currently control five of Nigeria’s 36 states. These are Anambra, governed by APGA; Osun, controlled by the Accord Party; and Abia, under the Labour Party. Oyo and Bauchi states are governed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM),

The ruling APC controls 31 states as well as Abuja.

Under the existing arrangement, the federal government maintains a substantial security presence in every state through the Nigeria Police Force. However, under a state policing system, opposition governors would possess greater capacity to protect their political interests before, during and after elections.

State police would reduce the federal government’s ability to shape election security arrangements. For the APC and President Tinubu, ahead of the 2027 elections, this may mean that flipping opposition-controlled states will become more difficult.

The advantage of incumbency at the federal level could be considerably weakened.

Governors become stronger political actors

The biggest beneficiaries of state police may not necessarily be ordinary citizens or political parties, but the governors.

They already exercise substantial influence over local government allocations, state assemblies and political structures within their states.

Control over policing institutions would further strengthen their positions.

A governor seeking re-election or attempting to install a successor may possess considerable influence over the state’s security architecture.

Such influence could serve as a shield against external political pressures. It may also strengthen governors’ negotiating position with political parties at the national level.

Rather than depending heavily on the federal government for security support, governors would be largely independent.

A new era of federalism?

Supporters of state police argue that this is precisely the objective. Nigeria’s federal structure, they say, has remained excessively centralised for decades.

Security powers concentrated in Abuja contradict the principles of federalism. Allowing states to control their own policing institutions could deepen federalism and strengthen state autonomy.

The political consequences may simply be part of that restructuring. If governors gain greater authority over security matters, the federal government inevitably loses some influence.

That shift may create a more balanced federation in which states possess greater negotiating power.

Concern not new

Critics of state police warn that the redistribution of power, which could reduce federal influence, may also encourage abuse by governors. Governors may deploy state police against political opponents, suppress dissent or intimidate rival parties.

The concern is not entirely new.

Many governors already face accusations of exerting control over local institutions, including state assemblies and local governments. Adding policing powers could further concentrate authority at the state level. Thus, state police may not eliminate political interference in policing.

Instead, it could simply transfer that influence from Abuja to state capitals.

The question may no longer be whether politicians control the police, but which politicians control them.

The 2027 implication

If the constitutional amendment secures approval from at least 24 state assemblies and the institutions become operational before future elections, Nigeria’s electoral dynamics could change significantly.

Federal incumbency may become less powerful, governors may become stronger, and opposition states may become more resistant to federal influence.

Political parties may increasingly rely on governors rather than the federal government for electoral advantages.

For President Tinubu and the APC, state police could represent an unexpected political consequence of a reform primarily presented as a security solution.

The proposal, intended to tackle insecurity, may eventually reshape the country’s electoral balance of power.

In the end, the debate over state police may not simply be about fighting crime. It may also determine who controls political power in Nigeria’s next electoral cycle.

Constitutional lawyer speaks

A constitutional lawyer, Soliu Bakare, told PREMIUM TIMES that state policing is a welcome development, although he acknowledged concerns that politicians could abuse the system.

Responding to concerns that governors might compromise state police institutions, Mr Bakare said it would be better to allow the system to operate before introducing additional constitutional safeguards to address potential loopholes.

“We have to look at the purpose of the state police.

“There is no system that cannot be abused; even all the systems that we have in place now are being abused in one way or another, and state policing will not be an exception, but constitutional safeguards will reduce it to the barest minimum,” he said.