Is Nigeria Ripe For State Police?

As members of the Senate resumed from their long recess, Senate President, David Mark, presented before the distinguished members national issues that demand the senators’ quick attention.

The issues include the rising threat to national stability from terrorists, amendment of the Constitution, State creation, State Police, new revenue formula, uniform national minimum wage and reform of local council administration.

The most vexed among the itemized issues by the Senate President is State Police. Other issues appear less controversial.

State police has become an over-flogged and over debated matter in the polity. Whenever it is discussed, it raises fear, rage and anxiety in people. Understandably, the current security situation in the country has given rise to a renewed age-long clamour for the introduction of state police to complement efforts by the federal police to contain the pervasive crime rate in the country.

Proponents of State police argue that its introduction will enable state governors take full charge of security matters in their states, against the present order where they are called chief security officers, but are not in control of the coercive instruments in their respective states.

Their second contention is that state police is a veritable component of true federalism, and so this country cannot be an exception. They also claim that state police will enhance or promote community policing. I disagree. And I hasten to say that there is a difference between them.

The proponents further adduce reasons that state police will ensure equitable funding of the force between both the state and federal government, which hitherto has been solely funded by the federal authorities.

On the other hand, opponents of state police insist that we are not mature yet to handle state police as governors and politicians will abuse it and use the force to harass and intimidate political opponents.

First, we must admit that  many things are wrong with the Nigerian system of law enforcement and unless these things are corrected, the performance of the police will never improve. It is not enough to equip the police as what is required is not a total restructuring in the real sense, but also remodeling, repacking and repositioning of the force.

The inefficiency of the police has given rise to calls for a state police. Examining the positions of both proponents and opponents of state police, it is clear that both sides do not understand how a decentralised  system of law enforcement operates.

Decentralisation promotes specialisation and efficiency. Yes, it is true that decentralization could lead to abuse and conflicts if there are no guidelines. To effect the decentralization of the police, the political structure of the nation must be taken into account.

In a three tier system of government like ours, the local, state and federal governments must share the responsibility of law enforcement. Therefore, the local government  must take responsibility for municipal policing, the state for state police and the federal for federal offences and matters that cut across state boundaries.

There must be guidelines and supervisory framework for the operation of this system. In our case, an apolitical body could be set up to regulate the activities of the police in the various tiers.

The variety of crimes committed in the country, and the level of  sophistication, execution are indications that we need state police in the country. But this must be predicated upon the introduction of deep reforms in our federal structure.

The revenue allocation formula system must be abolished for fiscal federalism, while local government councils must be given autonomy. State police structure can only be viable in a true federal system of government. But the big question is, are we ready?

Arnold Alalibo