State Police: 24 Assemblies Clear Way For Historic Security Reform, But Big Questions Remain

Nigeria’s long-running debate over state police has reached a decisive legislative milestone, with 24 of the country’s 36 State Houses of Assembly approving the constitutional amendment required to establish a dual policing system, raising hopes that a fundamental restructuring of the country’s security architecture may finally be within reach.

The Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill, chaired by Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, announced on Friday, October 23, 2026, that the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, had secured the support of the constitutionally required two-thirds of state legislatures.

The development represents a significant breakthrough for proponents of state police, who have argued for years that Nigeria’s centralised policing structure is increasingly inadequate for a country of its size, population, geographical diversity and complex security challenges.

Under the proposed arrangement, the existing Federal Police Service would operate alongside State Police Services, creating a dual policing structure intended to strengthen security operations at the grassroots while preserving a federal policing institution with nationwide responsibilities.

The announcement followed the National Assembly’s passage of the constitutional amendment in both chambers and the subsequent approval by the requisite number of state legislatures. The working group said the amendment could now be returned to the National Assembly for transmission to President Tinubu for assent, in accordance with Section 9 of the Constitution.

Yet, while the approval represents an important constitutional milestone, it does not mean that state police are already operational or that Nigerians should expect an immediate transformation in their security environment.

The proposed reform must still pass through the remaining constitutional and legislative processes, including presidential assent to the amendment, completion of the proposed National Policing Bill and consequential legislation, and the establishment of safeguards, institutions, funding arrangements and operational procedures necessary to make the system effective.

For millions of Nigerians living with kidnapping, banditry, communal violence, armed robbery, insurgency and other forms of criminality, the central question is no longer simply whether state police should be established. It is whether the new structure can deliver safer communities without creating another instrument for political intimidation, selective justice or the abuse of public resources.

A Breakthrough After Years Of Debate

In its statement, the Presidential Working Group commended the State Houses of Assembly for approving the amendment and acknowledged the National Assembly’s role in passing the proposal through both chambers.

The group said the constitutional amendment, which provides for a dual policing system, had met the required threshold under Section 9 of the Constitution.

Section 9 prescribes the procedure for altering the Constitution. Amendments to provisions outside the specially protected sections generally require the support of at least two-thirds of all members of each chamber of the National Assembly and approval by resolutions of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly.

With 24 state legislatures approving the measure, the proposal has reached the required state-level threshold. The remaining legislative and executive steps must nevertheless be completed before the amendment can take effect.

The working group also disclosed that the draft National Policing Bill, 2026, and 29 consequential amendment bills were undergoing legislative drafting review and validation at the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The documents were submitted to the ministry after the working group completed its drafting assignment on October 19. The ministry was expected to return the validated bills by October 30, after which the group would conduct a final review before presenting them to the President.

This sequence is important because constitutional authorisation alone cannot establish a functioning state police system. The enabling legislation must specify the relationship between federal and state police authorities, their powers, recruitment standards, operational responsibilities, oversight mechanisms and procedures for resolving jurisdictional disputes.

The approval of 24 assemblies therefore signals substantial political agreement on the principle of reform, but the practical details will determine whether the initiative succeeds.

Why Nigeria Needs A Different Policing Model

Nigeria’s security difficulties have exposed the limitations of relying predominantly on a single national police institution to respond to criminal threats across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

The country faces markedly different security conditions across its regions. Communities in the North-East have endured prolonged insurgency, while parts of the North-West and North-Central have suffered from banditry, mass abductions, rural violence and communal conflicts. The South-East has experienced separatist-related violence and attacks on security personnel, while the South-South continues to contend with oil-related criminality, illegal refining and other threats. Urban centres across the country face robbery, fraud, cult-related violence and organised criminal activity.

These challenges differ in their causes, geography, operational demands and intelligence requirements.

A policing structure that depends heavily on central command can struggle to maintain the local knowledge and sustained community relationships needed to identify emerging threats, understand disputes before they escalate and respond quickly when residents report suspicious activities.

State police advocates contend that officers recruited and deployed within their communities would be better positioned to understand local languages, terrain, cultural practices, criminal networks and the relationships that often determine whether residents are willing to share intelligence with security agencies.

For example, a police unit familiar with rural settlements, farming routes, forest corridors and longstanding communal disputes may be better equipped to identify patterns of criminal movement than a team deployed from another part of the country without comparable local knowledge.

The argument is not that officers from outside a community are incapable of performing effectively. Rather, it is that proximity, continuity and local intelligence can make policing more responsive when supported by professional training, adequate resources and credible command structures.

A state police service could also enable state governments to direct greater attention to security problems that are often overshadowed by competing demands on the national police system.

However, proximity alone does not guarantee effectiveness. Local officers can be compromised by powerful individuals, captured by communal interests or intimidated by the same criminal networks they are expected to confront. State police must therefore be designed around professional independence and enforceable accountability rather than merely transferring police authority from one political level to another.