Nigeria’s Senate has moved to impose strict controls on the proposed state police system amid growing concerns that governors could weaponize local police forces against political opponents, ethnic groups, and dissenting voices.
On Wednesday, the upper chamber passed the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, but not without inserting safeguards aimed at preventing what many critics fear could become a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of state governors.
Leading debate on the bill, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele argued that the proposed constitutional amendment seeks to strike a delicate balance between decentralizing security and preventing the emergence of what some observers have described as “governors’ private armies.”
The legislation, transmitted to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu, would establish state-controlled police services alongside the existing federal police structure.
While supporters claim the move will improve security and address local crime more effectively, critics warn it could open the door to political intimidation, election manipulation, ethnic profiling, and abuse of power at the state level.
To counter these fears, the bill empowers the National Assembly to set nationwide standards covering recruitment, training, promotions, discipline, firearms usage, accountability, complaints procedures, and professional conduct. The federal government would also retain significant oversight powers.
Under the proposal, state police would be responsible for enforcing state laws, maintaining public order, and handling local security matters.
However, the federal police would continue to control sensitive national security issues, including terrorism, organized crime, cybercrime, border security, arms trafficking, and interstate criminal activities.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill is its provision allowing federal intervention in state police affairs under certain conditions.
According to Bamidele, Abuja could step in if a state police force becomes dysfunctional, engages in serious human rights violations, threatens national security, undermines public order, or is used to intimidate voters during elections.
Such intervention would require written authorization from the President, be subject to Senate oversight, and remain open to judicial review.
Supporters of the bill insist these safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse.
Critics, however, argue that the very existence of such extensive safeguards raises a troubling question: if lawmakers are already worried about governors misusing state police, should they be trusted with such powers in the first place?
As the debate intensifies, the proposed state police system is rapidly emerging as one of the most divisive constitutional reforms in recent Nigerian history, pitting advocates of local security control against those who fear it could strengthen political strongmen and weaken democratic freedoms.
