As the Senate advances constitutional reforms to establish state police services across Nigeria, lawmakers have moved to allay fears that governors could use the new security structure to intimidate opponents or pursue personal political interests.
Leading debate on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Alteration (State Police) Bill, 2026, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele outlined a series of constitutional safeguards designed to ensure accountability, protect citizens’ rights and prevent abuse of authority under the proposed decentralised policing framework.
The bill secured Senate approval on Wednesday after an extensive clause-by-clause review and a successful vote in which more than two-thirds of senators endorsed the proposal through a manual voting process. The legislation must still pass through the House of Representatives, receive presidential assent and gain approval from a majority of state Houses of Assembly before becoming part of the Constitution.
Explaining the intent behind the proposal, Bamidele said the constitutional amendment, transmitted to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu, was carefully designed to create an effective state policing system without undermining national unity or constitutional safeguards.
According to a statement issued by his office and titled *“Senate Adopts Measures to Prevent Abuse of State Police by Governors,”* the proposed arrangement seeks to ensure that governors are unable to manipulate state police institutions for political or sectional interests.
The statement read in part, “The bill is intended to retain the Nigeria Police Force for federal policing duties while providing for the establishment of state police services in states that choose to adopt them.”
Providing further insight into the proposed structure, Bamidele explained that state police formations would have clearly defined responsibilities limited to matters within their jurisdictions.
“Bamidele further broke down the details of the proposed decentralised police structure, noting that state police would be responsible only for enforcing state laws, maintaining public safety and public order, preventing and detecting crimes within their jurisdiction, protecting lives and property, and carrying out other local policing responsibilities.
“On the responsibilities of the federal police, Bamidele noted that the federal police would be in charge of protecting federal institutions, counter-terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime, border security, arms trafficking, interstate criminal activities, and other national security matters.”
The Senate Leader stressed that the proposed framework preserves the central role of the federal police in handling national security threats while allowing states to address local law enforcement challenges more effectively.
He also explained that federal authorities would retain the power to intervene in state policing operations under strictly defined circumstances.
According to him, “the interventionary powers of the federal police could only be activated when there is an outright breakdown of public order in a specific subnational entity; when a state police service is incapable of functioning; when there is a serious violation of fundamental rights; when there is an established record of electoral intimidation; and when national security is under threat.”
To prevent arbitrary interference, Bamidele noted that any federal intervention would be subject to legal and constitutional checks.
He added that “such intervention could only come after the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces authorises it in writing. It would be limited in scope and duration, subject to Senate oversight and open to judicial review.
“The bill generally seeks to balance local policing autonomy with national cohesion, accountability with operational effectiveness, and federal oversight with state responsibility.
“The bill provides robust safeguards against abuse, preserves federal authority where necessary, protects constitutional rights, and creates a modern policing framework capable of addressing contemporary security challenges.”
The Senate’s position comes amid long-standing concerns raised by critics of state policing, who have warned that governors could potentially exploit locally controlled police services to harass political rivals, suppress dissent or influence elections.
Supporters of the reform, however, argue that the proposed safeguards, coupled with legislative oversight, judicial review and continued federal policing powers, provide adequate protection against abuse while addressing the security challenges confronting communities across the country.
If the amendment successfully completes the remaining constitutional processes, Nigeria would, for the first time, operate a dual policing system in which state police services function alongside the federal police, marking a major transformation of the nation’s security architecture.
(Ripples)
