Mr. Abiodun Olatunji is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). In this interview with ROTIMI AGBOLUAJE, the alumnus of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies supported the creation of a State Police but insisted that it must operate under strong judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse. He also explained how decentralised policing can strengthen intelligence gathering, curb kidnapping and improve security while protecting citizens’ fundamental rights.
As a lawyer, do you support the proposed State Police? Why or why not?
Yes, I wholeheartedly support the establishment of State Police, both as a lawyer and as an independent citizen and investor. In my view, the creation of State Police is long overdue and represents a necessary step in Nigeria’s constitutional and security evolution.
Nigeria operates a federal system comprising diverse ethnic nationalities, cultures, languages and religious backgrounds. Each state faces unique security challenges that are often local in nature and therefore require local solutions. It is only logical that policing should be undertaken by officers who understand the language, customs, culture, geography, and social dynamics of the communities they serve.
Globally, successful federal democracies have embraced decentralised policing. Countries such as the United States, Canada and Germany place significant emphasis on sub-national policing because effective intelligence gathering begins at the community level. Local officers are better positioned to identify criminal elements, gather actionable intelligence and earn the confidence of the people.
The present arrangement has also created a constitutional contradiction. State Governors are described as the Chief Security Officers of their states, yet they have no operational control over the Police operating within their jurisdictions. Commissioners of Police are appointed by, report to, and take directives from the Inspector-General of Police.
Over the years, Nigerians have witnessed situations where Commissioners of Police openly disregarded duly elected Governors because of political differences between the Governor and the Federal Government. We have equally seen instances where the Federal Police became embroiled in politically motivated disputes, including controversial impeachment processes and other partisan engagements.
A properly structured State Police system would substantially reduce these anomalies by bringing responsibility and accountability closer to the people. For these reasons, I support the establishment of State Police without reservation.
What should be included in the State Police Bill to provide constitutional safeguards?
The principal concern that has historically been raised against State Police is the fear that some Governors may convert it into an instrument of political intimidation or oppression. Those concerns are genuine and deserve serious constitutional attention. However, the solution is not to reject State Police. Rather, it is to build robust constitutional and institutional safeguards into the legal framework establishing it.
The Constitution already guarantees fundamental rights under Chapter IV, including the rights to personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement and the dignity of the human person. These constitutional guarantees must remain fully enforceable against every State Police authority.
Beyond existing constitutional protections, the legislation establishing State Police should provide for independent oversight mechanisms, clearly define operational powers, prescribe strict disciplinary procedures for abuse of office, and ensure judicial oversight over the exercise of police powers.
On the whole, no police institution, whether federal or state, should owe allegiance to any individual. Its allegiance must always be to the Constitution, the rule of law and the Nigerian people.
State Governors claim they do not have operational control of the Police even as Chief Security Officers. Will State Police fix this challenge?
Yes, I believe it will. One of the greatest deficiencies in our current security architecture is the disconnect between constitutional responsibility and operational authority. Governors are constitutionally expected to ensure security within their states but possess little or no effective control over the Police operating there.
Under a State Police arrangement, the Commissioner of Police should be appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly. The Commissioner would then be accountable within the constitutional and statutory framework established by the state.
The State Government would be responsible for funding, equipment, logistics, personnel welfare and operational support through legislation enacted by the State Legislature.
Of course, these powers must not be absolute. They should remain subject to constitutional limitations, legislative oversight and judicial review.
More importantly, once State Police become operational, Governors will no longer have any justification for blaming Abuja for security failures within their states. Given the unprecedented increase in allocations from the Federation Account in recent years, they will have both the financial capacity and constitutional responsibility to secure their respective states.
Critics fear that Governors may use State Police to harass political opponents. Are these fears justified?
Those concerns are understandable because Nigeria has witnessed instances where law enforcement agencies have been perceived as being used for political purposes. Naturally, many fear that the same abuse could simply be replicated at the state level.
However, the possibility of abuse should not become a reason to reject a fundamentally sound constitutional reform. Every governmental power is capable of abuse if not properly regulated.
The appropriate response is therefore to build strong safeguards into the legal framework establishing State Police. Independent appointment procedures, security of tenure for senior officers, legislative oversight, judicial review and enforceable constitutional rights would significantly reduce the risk of political interference.
In my view, the answer is stronger institutions, not the continued centralisation of policing.
What checks and balances would you recommend to prevent abuse by state governments?
Several constitutional safeguards are necessary.
First, the appointment of the State Commissioner of Police should require confirmation by the State House of Assembly through a simple majority vote.
Secondly, the funding of the State Police should be a first-line charge on the State Consolidated Revenue Fund to guarantee institutional stability and reduce arbitrary financial control.
Thirdly, the Commissioner of Police should enjoy security of tenure. Removal from office should only occur in accordance with clearly defined statutory provisions and for specified grounds established by law, rather than at the pleasure of the Governor.
In addition, legislative oversight committees, independent police complaints mechanisms, judicial review and periodic public accountability reports should all be incorporated into the legal framework. These safeguards would strengthen institutional independence while ensuring accountability.
Do you think poor states can fund and sustain sub-national police forces?
The issue is not whether states can fund State Police. The real issue is whether public resources are being properly prioritised. Under the current fiscal arrangement, both the Federal Government and the states receive unprecedented allocations from the Federation Account. In addition, internally generated revenue has increased significantly in many states over the past few years.
Security is the primary constitutional responsibility of every government. Once security is treated as a genuine priority, every state should be able to establish and sustain its own Police Service.
Indeed, most states are already expending enormous resources supporting the existing Federal Police through the provision of vehicles, accommodation, operational logistics and other forms of assistance. Rather than continuing with indirect support, those same resources can be channeled into building efficient State Police institutions. What is required is accountability, prudent financial management, reduced corruption and a commitment to placing the security and welfare of citizens above every other consideration.
What would be your advice regarding recruitment, training and discipline to ensure professionalism?
Recruitment should primarily focus on qualified indigenes and long-term residents who possess deep knowledge of the local environment, language and culture. Such officers are naturally better positioned to gather intelligence and earn the trust of the communities they serve.
However, recruitment must never compromise merit. Comprehensive background investigations, psychological assessments, integrity screening and medical evaluations should form part of the recruitment process. Training standards should be equivalent to those applicable within the Nigeria Police Force. Beyond conventional policing, officers should receive specialised instruction in constitutional law, human rights, criminal procedure, conflict resolution, community policing and intelligence gathering.
I also recommend that experienced constitutional lawyers, retired judges and seasoned police officers of proven integrity be regularly engaged to lecture officers on constitutional supremacy, the limits of police powers and the importance of respecting fundamental rights.
As regards discipline, it is indispensable. Every successful police organisation is built upon discipline, professionalism and accountability. The enabling law should therefore establish an independent disciplinary framework capable of investigating misconduct promptly and imposing appropriate sanctions where necessary.
Do you have an idea of the legal framework that would sustain peaceful cooperation between the Federal and State Police?
Yes. The Constitution should clearly define the respective jurisdictions of both police services. The Federal Police should retain responsibility for enforcing federal laws, protecting national institutions, border security, terrorism, organised crime, interstate offences and other matters affecting national security.
State Police should primarily enforce state laws and address crimes occurring within their territorial jurisdiction. Where criminal activities transcend state boundaries or threaten national security, jurisdiction should automatically shift to the Federal Police, working in collaboration with the relevant State Police authorities.
However, except in constitutionally defined emergencies or matters affecting national security, the Federal Police should ordinarily intervene within a state’s primary policing jurisdiction upon the request or in collaboration with the State Government.
Such constitutional clarity would minimise jurisdictional conflicts and promote effective cooperation.
Do you strongly believe that State Police will significantly reduce kidnapping, banditry and other violent crime?
Yes, I strongly believe so. Criminals don’t operate in isolation. They reside within communities, maintain networks of collaborators and rely heavily on local intelligence. The greatest weapon against violent crime is timely and accurate intelligence.
State Police, being locally rooted, would possess superior knowledge of the terrain, local languages, social structures and community dynamics. Community members would also be more willing to volunteer useful information to officers whom they know and trust. This enhanced intelligence capability would make it considerably more difficult for kidnappers, bandits and other criminal elements to operate undetected.
While State Police alone can’t eliminate crime entirely, it would significantly strengthen Nigeria’s overall security architecture and improve our capacity to prevent and respond to violent crimes.
What lessons can Nigeria learn from federal systems such as the United States, Canada, India and Germany regarding sub-national policing?
Nigeria can learn several important lessons from mature federal democracies. First, effective federalism requires the decentralisation of policing. In countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany and India, policing is largely performed at the state, provincial or local level because security challenges differ from one jurisdiction to another. Local authorities are therefore better equipped to respond quickly and effectively.
Secondly, these countries demonstrate that decentralisation succeeds only when accompanied by strong constitutional safeguards, independent institutions, professional training, adequate funding and judicial oversight. State Police should never become private security outfits for elected officials. Their loyalty must always be to the Constitution and the rule of law.
Thirdly, there must be a clear constitutional division of responsibilities between the national and sub-national police services. Local crimes should ordinarily be handled by State Police, while offences affecting national security, interstate criminality and federal laws should remain within the jurisdiction of the Federal Police.
Finally, these countries teach us that policing is most effective when communities trust the officers policing them. Public confidence, community participation and intelligence-led policing have proven to be far more effective than excessive centralisation. Nigeria should adapt these lessons to suit our own constitutional realities and not merely replicate foreign models.
What role should the judiciary play in preventing abuse of State Police powers and protecting citizens’ fundamental rights?
The Judiciary remains the last hope of the common man, and its constitutional responsibility will remain unchanged regardless of whether Nigeria adopts State Police.
The courts must continue to courageously interpret and enforce the Constitution while safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter IV.
Whenever any Governor, Commissioner of Police or other public officer exceeds constitutional or statutory powers, the Judiciary must intervene decisively. Every unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, infringement of constitutional rights or abuse of police authority should attract prompt judicial scrutiny and appropriate remedies. The courts must continue to declare unconstitutional actions null and void whenever they offend the Constitution or any valid law. In the final analysis, the success of the State Police will depend not only on good legislation but also on an independent judiciary that remains fearless, impartial and unwavering in defending the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.
