By Dr. Emmanuel Ejembi

Dr. Ejembi argues that funding, independence and accountability—not politics—will determine whether state police strengthens security or creates new risks for Nigeria’s democracy.

Few policy proposals have generated as much interest in recent years as the push for state police. As insecurity continues to challenge communities across the country, the idea of devolving policing powers from the federal government to the states has moved from the fringes of public debate to the centre of national discourse.

Supporters see state police as a long-overdue reform that could transform security governance. Critics warn that it could hand governors a powerful instrument capable of being misused for political purposes.

Both sides make compelling arguments. Yet amid the passionate debate over command structures, recruitment processes, uniforms and constitutional amendments, one critical question has received far less attention than it deserves: who will pay for state police?

The answer may well determine whether the reform succeeds or fails.

The Funding Question

Before debating operational structures, policymakers must first resolve the issue of funding.

If state police are established, should they be funded entirely by state governments? Or should they receive constitutionally guaranteed allocations directly from the Federation Account?

This is not merely an administrative matter. It goes to the very heart of police independence.

Many states already face significant fiscal pressures and remain heavily dependent on monthly allocations from the Federation Account. A system that places the entire burden of policing on state governments could create stark disparities across the federation, with wealthier states operating sophisticated police services while poorer states struggle to recruit personnel, purchase equipment or maintain operations.

Equally important is the issue of control. Where funding depends entirely on governors, there is a risk that operational decisions could be influenced through budgetary pressure. A police service that can be rewarded or punished financially by political actors may find it difficult to maintain public confidence as an impartial institution.

For this reason, many advocates argue that if state police are to become a reality, their funding should enjoy constitutional protection, possibly through a first-line charge mechanism that guarantees a minimum level of financial autonomy.

In many respects, the debate over funding is also a debate about independence.

Lessons from Other Federations

Australia offers a useful lesson.

Each state maintains and funds its own police service, yet institutions such as the Australian Federal Police and state agencies operate within legal and professional frameworks that help insulate operational policing from day-to-day political interference. While elected governments determine policy priorities and approve budgets, police leaders retain responsibility for law enforcement decisions.

For example, oversight mechanisms such as anti-corruption commissions, ombudsman offices and parliamentary scrutiny provide important safeguards against abuse.

Nigeria need not replicate the Australian model in its entirety. Australia operates a mature federal system, while Nigeria’s federal arrangement remains more centralised. Nevertheless, the lesson is clear: funding arrangements should strengthen institutional independence rather than weaken it.

Is State Police the Solution?

State police is often presented as the answer to Nigeria’s security challenges. That may be an overstatement.

The country’s security concerns are rooted in a complex mix of factors, including poverty, unemployment, weak institutions, communal tensions, illegal arms proliferation, porous borders and shortcomings within the criminal justice system. No single reform can solve all these problems.

What state police can do, however, is improve the effectiveness of law enforcement by bringing policing closer to the communities being served.

Nigeria currently operates one of the most centralised policing systems in the world. Decisions affecting communities hundreds of kilometres away are often filtered through command structures located in Abuja. Governors are widely regarded as chief security officers of their states, yet they exercise limited authority over police formations operating within their jurisdictions.

The result is a system that frequently struggles with response times, local intelligence gathering and community trust.

The strongest argument for state police lies in its potential to bridge this gap.

Police officers recruited and trained within local communities are more likely to understand local languages, cultural dynamics and emerging security threats. They are often better positioned to gather intelligence, build trust and respond rapidly when incidents occur.

Local knowledge is not a substitute for professionalism, but it is often a force multiplier.

The Independence Challenge

Yet decentralisation alone is not enough.

A state police system that merely transfers authority from Abuja to state capitals without building strong safeguards could simply relocate existing problems rather than solve them.

The critical question is whether the emerging framework will create institutions that are independent enough to enforce the law without fear or favour.

This challenge becomes particularly evident when considering leadership appointments.

Who should appoint the heads of state police formations?

If governors possess unrestricted authority to appoint and remove police chiefs, concerns about political interference will inevitably persist. Critics frequently point to historical experiences in which local security structures were accused of serving partisan interests.

International experience again offers useful insights. In several federal systems, police commissioners are appointed through clearly defined legal processes involving independent review, legislative scrutiny and institutional oversight.

Nigeria may therefore need a similar balance. Independent State Police Service Commissions, supported by legislative oversight, could oversee recruitment, promotions and discipline while protecting police leadership from arbitrary political interference.

Such safeguards would help build public confidence in the neutrality of the institution.

State Police or Regional Police?

Another important dimension of the debate concerns scale.

While state police has gained significant momentum, some analysts continue to advocate for regional policing structures aligned with Nigeria’s geopolitical zones.

Their argument is straightforward. Many security threats, including banditry, kidnapping and arms trafficking, do not respect state boundaries. Regional police formations could facilitate coordination across neighbouring states while benefiting from economies of scale in training, logistics and intelligence operations.

Supporters of state police counter that security is most effective when it is closest to the people and that regional structures may simply create another layer of bureaucracy.

The reality is that the two ideas need not be mutually exclusive.

A layered security architecture could allow the federal police to focus on terrorism, organised crime, border security and interstate offences, while state police concentrate on local law enforcement. Regional coordination platforms could then provide cooperation against threats that cut across state boundaries.

Such an arrangement may ultimately prove more effective than relying exclusively on either state or regional policing.

Beyond Politics

The debate over state police is often framed in political terms, but at its core it is a governance question.

How should a federal nation of more than 220 million people organise its security institutions to ensure they are effective, accountable and responsive?

There is no perfect model. Countries around the world employ different approaches based on their histories, demographics and constitutional arrangements.

What matters is not the label attached to the institution but the quality of the framework that supports it.

If state police is built on a foundation of professional recruitment, financial independence, operational autonomy and strong oversight, it could become one of the most significant governance reforms in Nigeria’s democratic journey.

If those safeguards are absent, however, the country risks creating thirty-six new centres of political influence without substantially improving public safety.

The debate, therefore, should not be about whether state police should exist. It should be about how to design a system that serves citizens, protects communities and strengthens the federation.

As Nigeria weighs one of the most consequential security reforms since the return to democratic rule, the objective should not simply be to decentralise policing. It should be to build institutions that are trusted, professional, accountable and capable of responding to the realities of local communities while remaining firmly anchored to national standards.

Those in power today should focus on creating a framework that will protect the rights of all Nigerians tomorrow, including their own when they eventually leave office. After all, institutions endure long after governments have changed.

That is the conversation Nigeria must get right.

Dr. Ejembi is a medical practitioner based in Queensland, Australia