We must recognise that policing is a public good—a service that benefits everyone, and no one should be excluded from its advantages. This is a universal principle.
It is reasonable to argue that Nigerian citizens are entitled to security because the state has a constitutional duty to protect life and preserve public order. The Constitution stipulates that the security and welfare of the people are the primary purpose of government. This places an obligation on the state to provide protection through institutions like the Nigerian Police.
But it is increasingly looking like President Tinubu is planning to decentralise the police service. He wants the security to be uneven for all citizens. His proposal will make policing a private good, available only to elite citizens and to states that can afford it. That is not how public good provision works.
Based on the projection, wealthier states like Lagos could fund well-equipped forces, while poorer states may struggle to sustain even basic policing. But this is made to look as if the wealthy states deserve better police service than the poorer states. It is made to sound like competition. When you hear the argument, it makes one confuse security with internally generated revenue. That is myopic.
With state policing, states will struggle to build police barracks, training centres, and command centres, and to pay salaries and buy firearms and uniforms. Let us not forget that several states are struggling to pay the salaries to existing teachers, health workers, and other civil servants. It will be an undue burden to add state policing, where it will start from scratch.
Some may argue that the money will come from the centre. But we know Tinubu has a habit of doling out an equal amount of money to states regardless of their priorities. Recall when he distributed N5 billion to each state, regardless of population or poverty levels, to cushion the effect of fuel subsidy removal. One would not be wrong to predict that Tinubu will distribute an equal amount of money to states to finance their state policing, irrespective of their population, landmass, and levels of insecurity.
Therefore, if a state police system is introduced, it will overlook the fundamental principle that policing should be fair, equitable, and accessible across all communities. This will result in uneven security across the country. However, the administration does not appear to be concerned about creating even greater fiscal inequality in the distribution of public goods.
Legally speaking, it is astonishing how they are considering implementing a state police system when it is clearly unconstitutional. Do Tinubu and the new Inspector General of Police (IGP) need to be reminded about Section 214(1) of the Constitution?
The specified rule is neither ambiguous nor contradictory. It reads as follows: “There shall be a police force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this Section, no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.”
We might want to excuse the IGP for being newly appointed, but that does not mean he should make exceptions in law enforcement, and the Constitution stands above all other laws in the land. The point here is that state police will not be legal under the present Constitution. That being said, we must accept the reality that we live in unprecedented times under the Tinubu administration, where things are done in an erratic manner.
But let us consider a scenario where the Constitution is amended to include a state police system. This will not be like the amendments to the Tax Laws or the Electoral Act. We all recall how tedious those changes were. However, the state police will be more difficult to pass, as it will require a major constitutional change. Sections establishing a single force must be amended. Under the Constitution, amendments require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and approval from at least 24 state legislatures. Surely, the process will be politically demanding even if they have most of the Governors under their control.
There will be challenges to address, as it will be the first time any active leader has come under such a system since the First Republic, which was a regional government. Bringing such a system into effect today would mean creating 36 distinct state police leadership, training sites, and command centres. Under the command centre will be several Area Commands and Divisional Headquarters, which manage local stations. This does not involve the finances.
Similarly, the new laws, subject to the Constitution, must consider whether the state police have the right to use firearms and kill. We also need to note that separate state laws need to be enacted, under which police will be responsible to state authorities. This means police will answer to governors and, in micro situations, the local government chairmen. I will leave that to the reader’s imagination. It is not just about suppressing opponents and controlling elections, but those too. This means police can be engaged in land grabbing and collusion to commit crimes against minorities.
Then there is the potential for jurisdictional conflict across state borders. Given the banditry, terrorism, kidnappings, assaults, financial crimes, and other domestic issues in the country, we know that crimes do not respect state borders. A suspect may commit an offence in one state and escape to another. If each state has its own police, several questions arise: Which police force has the authority to make an arrest? Can one state's police operate in another state? Who controls the investigation when crimes cross jurisdictions? Clearly, without strong federal coordination, there will be enforcement gaps.
We could go on much longer discussing the negative outcomes of state policing. The main issue with the proposal is that this administration hardly engages with critical stakeholders nationwide. They mostly consider benefits to specific interests from the South. Some northern elders say that the regional police system under the First Republic was never suitable for the region. Some say it was the reason why Gowon abolished it, and no other Head of State or President has considered reviving it.
Unsolicited advice: consider empowering the Nigeria Police Special Constabulary, established in 2020. It is a community-based policing initiative designed to assist with local security, intelligence gathering, and community relations. Recruited from local communities, these officers are trained but are not authorised to carry arms. This is one sure way to ensure an even distribution of public goods across the country.