President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Comrade Kehinde Taiga, has expressed fear over the proposed establishment of state police in Nigeria, warning that the initiative could be weaponized by politicians and powerful individuals to intimidate opposition figures and ordinary citizens in the states.
Speaking during a telephone interview with Emerald News, Taiga acknowledged that state governments possess the financial capacity to equip and fund state police formations to combat insecurity, insurgency, kidnapping, and other criminal activities.
However, he argued that the political risks associated with the system far outweigh its potential benefits.
“The issue now is that if governors want to form state police and acquire whatever equipment is necessary to fight insecurity and insurgency, they can do so because states have money, especially now that their allocations have increased,” he said.
“But my concern is that, at the end of the day, state police will become political tools for politicians.”
According to the human rights advocate, governors and local government chairmen could exploit control of state police forces to suppress opposition parties during elections.
“They will use them against the opposition. The disadvantages of state police are greater than the positive outcomes that may come from it,” Taiga stated.
He warned that because state governments would fund the police, pay salaries of officers, political interference would be inevitable.
“It will be politicized because the government is the one paying them.
During election periods, those in power may use the state police to intimidate opponents and influence electoral outcomes,” he said.
The CDHR president also expressed concern that the creation of state police could weaken federal policing structures, as state governments may prioritize funding their own security outfits while reducing support for federal police operations within their jurisdictions.
“Federal police may become ineffective in the states because governors will focus resources on state police. Operational support, logistics, and funding for federal police could be restricted,” he said.
Taiga further expressed fear that state police could become involved in domestic disputes, land conflicts, and other civil matters, creating opportunities for abuse of power.
“They may be used to intimidate people in husband-and-wife disputes, civil matters, and land cases. Some individuals could even use state police to advance personal interests in land disputes,” he alleged.
Drawing comparisons with existing local security structures, he argued that even vigilante groups, which are not constitutionally recognized as police institutions, have sometimes been accused of intimidating citizens.
As an alternative, Taiga advocated strengthening the existing federal police system through community-based recruitment and policing initiatives.
He recalled the community policing programme that facilitated the recruitment of constabularies from local communities and their deployment within their areas of origin.
“Those they want to recruit into state police should instead be recruited into the federal police and deployed to their communities. We have seen such arrangements work through community policing and constabulary recruitment,” he said.
Taiga also criticized support for state police among some security stakeholders, insisting that the policy could have unintended consequences for the future of policing in Nigeria.
“I am totally against state police. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The proposal is premature and could create more problems than it is intended to solve,” he noted.
The debate over the establishment of state police has continued to generate mixed reactions across the country, with supporters arguing that decentralizing policing would improve security and local intelligence gathering, while critics fear it could lead to political abuse and undermine national cohesion.
