Nigeria’s Constitutional Overhaul: State Police Bill Passes Senate, Ushering in Dual Policing Era
The Nigerian Senate has taken a significant step towards constitutional reform, passing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026. This landmark Executive Bill, transmitted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, proposes a fundamental restructuring of the nation’s policing architecture by establishing State Police Services alongside the existing Federal Police Force. The legislation, which successfully navigated second and third readings, seeks to amend Sections 214, 215, and 216 of the 1999 Constitution, marking a departure from the decades-long centralised policing model.
The passage of the bill, which garnered overwhelming support, was underscored by the presence of key executive officials and state governors in the Senate gallery, including Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, Governors Uba Sani, Dapo Abiodun, and Lucky Aiyedatiwa, alongside several Attorneys-General. This legislative milestone, sponsored by Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele, signals a potentially transformative shift in Nigeria’s security landscape, prompting critical discussions on its efficacy, financial viability, and the potential for abuse of power.
The core of the amendment, Clause 12, which alters Section 214 of the Constitution, formally introduces a dual policing structure: the Federal Police Service and the State Police Service. This effectively dismantles the constitutional monopoly previously held by the Nigeria Police Force. A pivotal change, detailed in Clause 17, empowers governors to appoint Commissioners of Police for their respective State Police Services. However, this authority is subject to stringent safeguards. Appointments require a recommendation from the National Police Council and confirmation by a two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly, preventing unilateral gubernatorial decisions.
Addressing a long-standing practical challenge where governors, despite being designated Chief Security Officers, lacked operational control, Section 17(6) now permits governors to issue lawful written directives of a general policy nature to State Commissioners of Police concerning public safety and order. Crucially, these directives are circumscribed by robust protections against political abuse. Section 17(7) explicitly prohibits Commissioners of Police from arresting individuals for mere criticism of the government, detaining political opponents for dissent, investigating citizens solely for expressing opposition views, or deploying force against those who criticise the government. All actions must strictly adhere to legal frameworks.
An innovative safeguard, described by lawmakers as an “institutional escape hatch,” allows a Commissioner of Police to refer a governor’s directive to the National Police Council if it is deemed unlawful, unconstitutional, politically motivated, or inconsistent with accepted policing standards. The Council’s decision on such referrals is binding and final, establishing an independent mechanism to resist political interference. The Federal Government retains the power to intervene in State Police Services under specific circumstances, such as a complete breakdown of law and order beyond a state’s capacity or upon a formal request from the governor. However, any such federal intervention requires Senate approval within 48 hours, limiting its indefinite continuation.
The amendment also introduces security of tenure for police leadership. An Inspector-General of Police can no longer be removed solely at presidential discretion, and governors are similarly restricted from arbitrary dismissal of Commissioners of Police. Removal now necessitates a recommendation based on stated cause, oversight by the National Police Council, and approval by a two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly, aiming to insulate police leadership from undue political pressure.
Senators have voiced strong opinions on the bill’s implications. Senator Sani Bello, representing Niger North, views the reform as a necessary adaptation to Nigeria’s growing population and escalating security threats, stating, “The way police is being structured today, they cannot meet up with the security challenges.” He anticipates an increased operational presence and a significant reduction in insecurity, while acknowledging that implementation will reveal further gaps.
Senator Francis Onyewuchi, representing Imo East, lauded President Tinubu’s initiative, asserting, “Security is a local business, and it must be kept local.” He believes State Police will alleviate the burden on the Federal Police and enable more targeted responses, expressing confidence in states’ enhanced financial capacity to fund these services. Onyewuchi dismissed concerns about the bill’s timing being linked to elections, labelling the matter as “existential.”
Senator Abdulfatai Buhari, representing Oyo North, acknowledged that no system is perfect but stressed that success hinges on implementation and the presence of robust legal safeguards. He drew parallels with international models in America and Canada, concluding, “I believe we are heading in the right direction.”
Senate Minority Leader Abba Moro, who initially harboured concerns about funding, revealed his shift to support the bill after the inclusion of safeguards against abuse. He cited increased state revenues and constitutional checks as factors that assured him of the bill’s viability and necessity in addressing pervasive insecurity.
Senator Ekong Sampson, representing Akwa Ibom South, described the mood in the Senate as overwhelmingly positive, characterising State Police as “an idea whose time has come.” He highlighted the lack of local ownership as a critical missing link in Nigeria’s security framework and pointed to Akwa Ibom’s community-based security structures as a potential model.
Senator Aminu Tambuwal, linking State Police to true federalism, reiterated his long-standing support for the concept, viewing it as integral to Nigeria’s federal structure.
