FOR a long time now, Nigerians have agitated for the setting up of state police formations to address the security challenges facing the country. Happily, the country’s political leadership agrees, and state policing crucially occupies a central place in the manifestoes of the leading political parties. And to his credit, President Bola Tinubu has , for some time now, been consistently harping on the need for state policing in the country.
For instance, speaking at the 14th meeting of the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Caucus in Abuja, the president urged governors and leaders of the party to rally behind the proposals for state police, saying that the party’s growing political dominance must be matched by concrete governance reforms.
In September last year, President Tinubu stated that creating state police is “unavoidable” to strengthen security across the country. He argued that states should be drivers of key policies. In November last year, the president gave a nod to the establishment of state police as part of measures to combat rising insurgency and banditry, urging the National Assembly to review laws to allow states to establish their own police forces. Tinubu later emphasised the need for community-based policing and in 2026 this year, he expressed confidence in the ability of state police formations to improve security, hinting US and European leaders about his plan.
The fact is not contested that Nigeria’s security challenges have outgrown a centralised policing system. If Nigeria’s security problems are essentially local but policing is centralised, then a massive problem emerges. Few people would doubt the claim that the banditry (terrorism) in the North-West, kidnapping in the South-East, cultism in the South-South and terrorist onslaughts on farmers in the Middle Belt and all over the country are all problems with unique social, cultural, and geographic roots.
A centrally controlled police force in a country like Nigeria would typically respond slowly, have problems accessing local intelligence, and apply generic solutions to specific problems. On the contrary, while serving as a complement to the federal police, state police, which would typically be embedded in local communities and understand local languages, terrain, and conflict dynamics, can be trusted to respond in a faster and smarter manner.
Look around the world and you will find that federal systems similar to Nigeria’s, whether you are talking of the United States, Germany, Canada, Australia, or India, all operate multi-level policing. It is not hard to see that the severe security challenges that Nigeria faces effectively highlight its outlier situation in this regard. Besides, the point has been made time and again that the federally controlled Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is overstretched: 371,800 officers and men have the job of protecting a population exceeding 236 million people. In this situation, the United Nations recommendation of 1 officer to 450 people can only elicit laughter. Worse still, if media reports are any indication, over 100,000 of this number are assigned to protect politicians and VIPs, severely reducing the number of personnel available for general public safety. The NPF leadership is on record as saying that an additional 190,000 personnel are needed to meet UN standards. Strangely, the leadership of the same federal force that is expected to fight terrorism, handle interstate crime, police elections, control protests and maintain everyday law and order has been reluctant to welcome state policing, but that does not erase the fact that state police formations sharing a significant part of the security burden would allow the federal police to focus on national and crossborder threats.
Governors are called Chief Security Officers of their states but that is actually a cruel joke. In this connection, happily, subnational policing already exists: Amotekun in the South-West, Ebube Agu in the South-East, Hisbah Police in the North-West. And on a less formal level, you have vigilante groups, hunters and, lest we forget, Civilian JTF in the North-East.
If only because with state police, citizens would know who to hold responsible for security lapses as governors can no longer hide behind Abuja, state policing recommends itself now. As we said in previous editorials, for each moment that Nigeria dilly-dallies in actualising state policing, it is putting its future in peril. We hereby restate our call on President Tinubu, governors and the leadership of the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly to act fast and save Nigerians from imminent danger. Intelligence works best at the grassroots. The security agencies themselves know that crime prevention relies more on intelligence than firepower. It is a fact that locals know who is new in town, where criminals hide, and which disputes may turn violent. We accept the thinking that state police can effectively build trust-based networks with traditional rulers, community leaders, youth groups, and vigilante, something a rotating federal force struggles to do; and that the fear of abuse, though real, is still manageable. The biggest objection is that governors may misuse state police against political opponents. That risk exists—but it already exists with federal police.
