Nigeria’s Policing Challenge

“There is a need to clarify the general impression held in this country about the services provided by the department of police and prisons. You will therefore have to examine the factors which have contributed to producing a distorted image of the machinery for the police administration in the minds of Nigeria republic and formulate concrete proposals for correcting any deficiencies”. This statement was part of General Aguiyi Ironsi’s address to the Gobir committee, which was formed following Nigeria’s first military coup. More than five decades after General Aguiyi Ironsi’s call for scrutiny into the Nigerian police, the force remains a challenged institution, marred by allegations ranging from bribery and corruption to extrajudicial killings. Corruption, a pervasive issue in Nigeria, has deeply entangled law enforcement, fostering a hostile relationship between the police and the public. Despite significant government spending on security, crime rates persist, leading to a widespread belief that federal oversight is disconnected from the states grappling with complex crimes, prompting calls for a state police mechanism.

According to Section 214 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), the Nigerian Police Force is the sole police force in the country. In this context, the Nigerian Constitution permits no police force other than a federal police force. While the federal government has stated that Nigeria is not ready for state police forces, state governments believe that the solution to Nigeria’s security dilemma is to amend the Constitution to allow states to own their forces. The 2021 National Assembly bill seeking to establish state police was rejected by the House, with Muhammed Wakil, a legislator from Kano State, citing apprehension amid divisions along ethnic lines and the potential abuse of the state police by state governments.

The primary argument advocating for establishing a state police in Nigeria is rooted in the constitutional principle of federalism. Nigeria operates as a federal state, dividing power between central and sub-national governments. The national and state houses of assembly are responsible for law-making at their respective levels. While federal and state courts coexist under the federalism principle, executive powers are vested in the president at the federal level and governors at the state level. Despite each state being designed as a self-sufficient government with legislative, executive, and judicial authority, the enforcement of laws falls solely under the jurisdiction of the Nigeria Police Force, a federal agency. Critics argue that establishing state police would align more closely with the decentralised nature of federalism, allowing states to enforce and maintain laws within their jurisdictions independently.

Additionally, challenges in federal police control, such as linguistic and cultural barriers during officer postings, impede communication with communities, hindering crime prevention efforts. Advocates for state police argue that localised enforcement would better address community-specific challenges, including language barriers.

A key argument for state police is challenging the misconception that only federal authorities can maintain a disciplined force. The initial decision to entrust policing solely to federal authorities in Nigeria was based on the incorrect belief that the individual states could not maintain a disciplined force influenced by past experiences in the first republic. However, it has become evident that federal police are not immune to corruption and indiscipline that plagued previous police forces. Additionally, the federal government bears an overwhelming burden of responsibilities, with 66 items on the exclusive legislative list. As a result, security is perceived as predominantly focused on protecting the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, the seat of power. At the same time, individual states incur significant expenses to subsidise the police operations deployed to their regions. Advocates argue that if states heavily invest in security matters, they should be able to exert control. It is widely argued that Nigeria is too huge for security issues to be overly centralised. In a country plagued by red tape, routine tasks such as force deployment to quell an insurgency consume significant time. The effectiveness of regional security frameworks such as Ebube Agu, Amotekun, and others has given weight to the widely held idea that security is a local problem that can only be managed by those who understand the territory.

On the other hand, the resistance against establishing state police in Nigeria stems from the persistent conditions that led to the downfall of the native police during the first republic. The historical abuse of power by local authorities and politicians, who exploited native police for personal political gains, resulted in its demise. Concerns about sponsors of terrorism within political circles and potential conflicts of interest and jurisdictional challenges further complicate the feasibility of state police.

A significant objection to state policing in Nigeria is that states lack the financial capacity to fund the creation of a police force, especially when struggling to meet the minimum wage of existing workers. However, this argument is challenged by the existence of “security votes” allocated to state governors. Although often criticised as an opaque fund for political and economic gains, security votes are intended for addressing urgent security challenges without bureaucratic constraints. While the amounts involved in security votes have sparked debates about transparency and accountability, proponents of state police argue that the funds allocated for security should be more than sufficient to establish and sustain state-controlled police forces.

The intensifying debate over the creation of state police reflects the perceived shortcomings of the current federal police in addressing rising violence and insecurity. However, historical challenges underscore the importance of a balanced approach to addressing federal and state-level concerns. The chosen policing strategy must effectively combat insecurity nationwide while considering the diverse tribal and religious differences among Nigerians. A collaborative and substantial intervention in the Nigerian Police Force is imperative to enhance capabilities and the overall policing framework in the country.