Reforming Nigeria’s control… – TheConclaveNg

“Security institutions require patience. When power exceeds structure, protection can become oppression.”

The worsening security crisis in Nigeria has once again revived the national debate on restructuring the country’s policing architecture. Across the federation, political leaders, security professionals and civic groups are increasingly arguing that a country of more than 200 million cannot continue to rely solely on a single, centrally controlled policing institution to address the complex threats of banditry, insurgencies, kidnappings and organized criminal networks.

The agitation for the state police has therefore returned to the center of the national conversation.
Supporters of decentralization present a compelling argument. Security threats are often local in nature. Communities understand their territory, social dynamics, and patterns of criminal activity better than distant command structures. In this light, giving states the power to organize police institutions could strengthen basic intelligence gathering, improve response times and bring law enforcement closer to the people.

The argument has merit. But it must be approached with caution. The real national question is not simply whether or not Nigeria wants state police. The deeper question is whether the country is institutionally prepared to manage the consequences of this structural transformation.

Security institutions are not simply administrative arrangements; they are instruments of state power. If poorly structured, inadequately financed or politically manipulated, they can exacerbate instability rather than resolve it.

Nigeria’s current policing framework remains one of the most centralized within federal systems. The Nigeria Police Force operates as a single national institution under federal authority, with operational command flowing from the center to all states. This centralized model was deliberately adopted after the First Republic to prevent the abuse of regional police forces which were sometimes used as tools of political intimidation.
Those historic experiences continue to shape national caution.

Yet modern security realities now highlight the limitations of an overly centralized structure. Criminal networks operate locally, move quickly and exploit intelligence gaps. A policing system heavily dependent on central command often struggles to respond with the speed and flexibility required by contemporary security threats.

This explains the renewed call for decentralization. However, countries that operate decentralized policing systems have not achieved success through fragmentation alone. They did this through careful institutional design and clear coordination mechanisms.
The United States, for example, operates a multi-tiered policing structure that includes federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation along with state police departments and thousands of local law enforcement agencies. Despite this decentralization, strong coordination systems exist for intelligence sharing and joint operations.

Federal authorities retain jurisdiction over national security, interstate crimes, and complex investigations. Germany provides another instructive example. Its policing system is largely decentralized to the Länder (states), but federal agencies maintain oversight over border protection, organized crime and counterterrorism. Coordination between federal and state law enforcement institutions is structured through formal legal frameworks that ensure cooperation rather than rivalry.

Canada and Australia also apply decentralized policing models in which federal police institutions work closely with provincial or state police services. These countries demonstrate that decentralization can be successful if supported by strong institutional cooperation, professional training standards and clear constitutional guarantees.
Nigeria can learn from these experiences.

The reform does not require wholesale copying of foreign models. But it is necessary to study the lessons of countries that have successfully balanced decentralized policing with national coordination. The federal government must therefore approach the ongoing reform debate with openness and vigilance.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s persistence in reopening the national debate on the restructuring of Nigeria’s policing architecture deserves measured praise. For decades, the topic has remained politically sensitive, often avoided at the federal level, despite growing evidence that the existing structure struggles to respond effectively to evolving security threats.

Breaking long-standing institutional inertia is never easy. However, openness to reforms must be accompanied by institutional guarantees. Decentralization must not become a gateway through which political actors can capture security institutions for partisan purposes. One of the primary fears surrounding state police has always been the possibility that governors could use local police facilities to intimidate political opponents or manipulate electoral processes.
This risk cannot be ignored lightly.

Nigeria’s reform framework must therefore include strong constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse. Recruitment standards, operational protocols, control mechanisms and disciplinary systems must be clearly defined. Federal institutions must maintain oversight authority in areas involving national security, interstate crime, and the constitutional protection of citizens’ rights.

Equally important is financial sustainability.

Policing is an expensive business. Recruitment, training, equipment, mobility, intelligence systems and welfare require sustained funding. Many Nigerian states are already facing severe fiscal pressures, including difficulties in meeting wage obligations. Establishing state police forces without stable funding arrangements could create security institutions that are poorly equipped and vulnerable to corruption, inefficiency and possible collapse.

This concern highlights the importance of exploring regional policing arrangements.
Rather than fragmenting police authority across all thirty-six states, regional frameworks could allow neighboring states to pool financial resources, training facilities, and operational logistics. Such cooperation would strengthen institutional capacity while preserving sensitivity to local security conditions. Regional collaboration could therefore provide a practical middle ground between rigid centralization and potentially unstable fragmentation.
Nigeria already has modest precedents for such collaboration. Regional initiatives such as the Western Nigeria Security Network, popularly known as Amotekun, demonstrate how states can cooperate to address local security challenges while maintaining coordination with national security institutions.

However, whatever structure is adopted, one principle must remain fundamental: synergy.
Effective policing in a federal system depends on seamless cooperation between federal, regional and local law enforcement institutions. Intelligence sharing, joint training programs, interoperable communications systems and coordinated operational protocols must form the backbone of any decentralized policing arrangement.

Fragmentation without coordination would weaken national security rather than strengthen it.

It is also important to address the management of existing security resources at the state level. Nigerian governors control important security votes, which amount to billions of naira each year. Furthermore, political office holders are often assigned large security personnel. A credible dialogue on reform must therefore examine how these resources can be redirected towards strengthening broader community security infrastructures instead of remaining concentrated around the political leadership.

If states seek greater police authority, they must demonstrate transparent management of security funds and clear accountability structures.

The Inspector General of Police has rightly urged caution in rushing structural changes that could weaken coordination in national security operations. His warning reinforces a critical point: decentralization must strengthen Nigeria’s security architecture rather than fragment it.

Security institutions cannot be improvised.

Reforming Nigeria’s policing system requires careful institutional design, broad national consultation and sustained political commitment. A broad-based national commission on police reform could therefore provide the most responsible path forward. Such a body should include security professionals, constitutional scholars, representatives of state governments, civil society organizations and regional stakeholders tasked with developing a balanced framework for decentralized policing.

Nigeria’s security challenges are urgent, but urgency should not replace wisdom.
The country must learn from the experiences of other federal democracies, borrow what works, avoid what fails, and design a system suited to its own constitutional and political realities.

Police reform is needed.

But reform must be driven by structure, discipline and accountability. When it comes to national security architecture, decentralization without safeguards is not a reform. It’s risk.

■ Ogundipe, public affairs analyst, former president of Nigeria and African Union of Journalists, writes from Abuja.
[March 5, 2026]

Related