Politics
On State Police And Nigeria’s Polity
There are esoteric reasons in the current prolonged agitations for state police, or otherwise. That is, beyond the known reasons given by different individuals and groups. A critical scrutiny of all the views expressed so far reveals unanimity in several areas regarding the importance of state police.
For one, the agitations, no matter the stand, have revealed that more Nigerians have become interested in governance. What this means is that more people are becoming more knowledgeable in the affairs of government to the point of making their own contributions. Whether such contribution is inconsequential is talk for another day.
But the truth is Nigerians have become more familiar with the intricacies of democracy after years of military dictatorship. The question thus is how prepared are the privileged few in governance to making the same adjustments as the majority of Nigerians?
Another area of agreement among all contributors to the state police saga is that the Federal Police has failed irrevocably in its responsibility to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians. Hence, the most pressing need for a way forward.
It is based on this agreement that the Governor’s Forum, which has become a very important arm of government, deemed it necessary to come up with the idea of a state police that would be under the direct control of governors, who are the chief security officers of the 36 federating states.
This agreement, ironically, turned out to be the point of disagreement, first among the governors, and later the rest of the schooled Nigerian public.
While governors in the southern part of the country are for the establishment of state police, because they believe it is the solution to the worsening security situation in the country, their colleagues from the north think differently.
To them, Nigeria is not ripe for a state police. They thus align with the Presidency, which has minced no words in its stand that the country still has a long way to go before it can effectively contain regional policing. Both of them have allies in former Inspectors-General of Police (IGPs), who in a recent meeting with the Presidency said state police would amount to “an invitation for anarchy”.
In the words of a human rights activist, Shehu Sani, the reason behind the opposition of the northern state governors to state police are numerous. Among them are the fear of a repeat of the brutality it used against the opposition during the colonial era in the north, and the possibility of some governors using it to enhance their secessionist tendencies.
“During the colonial time, the local police were directly under the emirate system referred to as Native Authority. At that time, they were brutally used against members of the opposition”, Sani said.
He continued that “They arrested people like late Hijiya Gambo Sawaba, then woman leader of late Aminu Kano’s party, Northern Element Progressive Union (NEPU) for no other reason than being a member of the opposition…
“If you look at what the Sharia police (Hisbah) are doing today at Kano and Zamfara, it is similar to what the Native Police did in the First Republic. Even though the Hisbah set up by the state governments claim to be enforcing Sharia law, they are used against people who criticize governors and their policies. Governors also use Hisbah to rig local government elections.”
The second key reason, according to Sani is that the North’s opposition “has to do with the event that led to the build up to the civil war. There is very strong fear that if the state police are allowed, some states’ secessionist ambition could arm the state police through the back door with weapons, which could lead to the breakup of the country.”
One of the former IGPs, Mike Okiro, made the same anti-decentralisation argument during a recent meeting of the South-South Peoples’ Assembly held in Delta State. According to him, “State police cannot help the country. We have tried it before in this country under the regional governments and it did not work.
“It is clear that state governors will misuse it if we go back to state police. They will use it against their political opponents, and I think in a democracy, people should be given the freedom to exercise their rights.” This stand has obviously been a common feature of the anti-state police perspective.
As elder Statesman and leader of Ijaw nation, Chief Edwin Clark puts it, “I don’t believe in state police, even though it is an essential ingredient of democracy. Nigeria as of today is not developed democratically to the extent of having a state police.
“The way the state governors behave has not made it necessary to have a state police. Some of the governors behave like dictators and there is this fear that they will use the state police for their political interests such as political thuggery,
“The governors are the chief security officers of their respective states and with state police, they will acquire the powers of life and death, where they will use it at their beck and call to intimidate and cajole their political enemies.
“At the right time, when the democratic practice is matured, state police can be introduced, but certainly not now. I will rather advocate the reformation of the Nigeria Police,” he explained.
Clark further argued that it was curious that some states that are yet to pay the minimum wage of #18,000.00 are among the advocates of the creation of the state police. He reasoned that if they are unable to pay the minimum wage of #18, 000.00 in a situation where the least paid police man earns about #30,000.00, where would they get the money to fund the police?
The implication of this leitmotif stand of the anti-state police is that the Federal Government is more mature and hence more capable to use the police for the good of all than the state governors.
However, former Lagos State Police Commissioner, Mr. Young Arebamen (rtd), disagrees with this perspective. He says the security challenges have grown beyond the competence of a centralised police and advised the Fedral Government not to politicise the issue.
“I can’t understand why some people are afraid of state police, if we have done something for 50 years and we still have problem of insecurity in the system, it is high time we began to think differently… if you eat eba that contained poison in the 60s, will you because of that stop taking eba? The answer is no. all you need to do is to avoid poison”, he said.
How to do this in the present state police saga, he explained, is to institute a control mechanism: “control measure should be spelt out in the constitution to avoid abuse of state police by state governors. We should learn lessons from history and proffer solutions for today and tomorrow”
In buttressing his position further, Arebamen noted that even in the present status quo, the state governments “are mostly responsible for the material and financial needs of the Federal Police”.
He said the governors as chief security officers of the states provide the police with patrol vehicles, maintain and fuel the vehicles, in addition to providing bullet proof vests, arms and ammunition, telecommunication gadgets, and also pay special allowances to those serving in the anti-crime squads.
“We should take politics out of security problems and face the reality of the time”, he concluded.
Unfortunately, this is where Shehu Sani totally disagrees when he noted that “The (governors) have bastardised the local government system, pocketed the states legislature and consistently manipulated elections to their favour, and at the same time looting the state treasury.
“If they have proved incapable, dubious and dishonest in handling those institutions, is self destruction for anyone to think that they can perform magic with state police”.
Even he, however, agrees that state police is necessary, “but the advocates should (first) come out with measures that will make it impossible for state authorities to manipulate”.
One way to do this, he said, is not just “creating layers of security and multiplicity of state apparatus, but ensuring that social justice and economic opportunities are abound for all Nigerians”.
This, obviously, is an unequivocal challenge for government to not only come up with a dispassionate constitution at all levels of governance, but also ensure that such constitution is followed to the letter in terms of application.
Instead, the Senate opted to retain the existing provision of the Electoral Act, which states that results shall be transmitted “in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”
Reacting to this, the NBA said the discretionary wording weakens the legal framework for credible elections.
“The current provision leaves room for manipulation, ambiguity and post-election disputes,” Mr Osigwe said, stressing that only a clear statutory mandate can guarantee transparency and protect the integrity of votes cast by Nigerians.
According to the NBA, enforceable electronic transmission provisions are no longer optional in a modern democracy.
“Credible elections are the bedrock of constitutional democracy, and continued resistance to mandatory electronic transmission undermines public confidence in the electoral process,” the Council noted.
The Association further emphasised that technology-backed transparency aligns with global best practices and is critical to restoring trust in Nigeria’s electoral system.
Consequently, NBA NEC called on members of the National Assembly to show legislative responsibility and statesmanship by voting in favour of the amendment compelling real-time electronic transmission of election results.
The Council reaffirmed the NBA’s commitment to sustained advocacy and engagement to ensure that Nigeria’s electoral laws truly reflect the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has dismissed speculation around giving official recognition to a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at its recent engagement with political parties in Abuja, the nation’s capital.
According to the electoral body, the Senator Samuel Anyanwu-led National Working Committee (NWC)’s attendance at the meeting does not necessarily amount to its recognition of one faction over another.
In explaining the reason behind having only the Senator Anyanwu group at the meeting, with the Dr Turaki-led group conspicuously absent, the Commission said the PDP was formally invited as a party and not any so-called faction within it.
INEC’s Deputy Director of Publicity, Mr Wilfred Ifogah, who spoke in an interview with journalists, said: “Invites are sent to the party, not to individuals,” noting that such letters are usually addressed to the party Chairman and Secretary.
He said since INEC does not determine which officials attend its meetings, it always accepts whoever a party presents as its representatives, adding: “Whoever the party sends as their representative is okay by the commission, because the letters are sent to the party, not the individual”
On concerns raised that only the Senator Anyanwu-led working committee were at the meeting, Mr Ifogah dismissed suggestions that INEC recognised that group to the exclusion of others, saying, “I didn’t know, you people are the one calling it faction”.
Further maintaining that INEC doesn’t meddle in internal party divisions, the Deputy Director acknowledged that party representatives usually introduce themselves at such meetings, often stating whether they are standing in for substantive officers.
Hear him: “Most times, if you are there at the opening ceremony, you find out that it’s either the person will say he’s representing the chairman, or the person is the chairman, and the other person is probably standing in for the secretary.”
While pointing out that INEC does not verify or question such representations, as long as the party responds to the invitation, he said: “As far as the party is concerned, we are not sure who comes. It’s just the party that sends people.”
Speaking on the crisis rocking the PDP, Mr Ifogah said internal disputes are outside INEC’s mandate, stressing further that: “The internal crisis has nothing to do with us. We don’t bother about that. Whenever they settle, we work.”
He said INEC would always encourage parties to resolve leadership disputes ahead of critical electoral activities, adding; “The only advice we give them is that whatever issue or internal crisis they have, they should settle it before we have activity.”
Admitting that prolonged internal disputes could affect a party’s participation in time-bound processes, Mr Ifogah said: “Whoever the substantive leadership of the party is should sign those documents so that they can be part of the process If not, when the activity is time-bound and they need something, that’s their cup of tea.”
He said the essence of party engagements is participation, not factional validation, and further explained that, “It’s just the Elections and Political Parties Monitoring Department that knows how to send invitations to them. They come for the meeting. I think that’s what is paramount”.
Senate Won’t Be Intimidated Into Passing Faulty Electoral Law — Akpabio
President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, has defended the removal of the provision for “real-time” electronic transmission of election results from the Electoral Bill 2026, insisting that the National Assembly would not be bullied into enacting a law that could endanger Nigeria’s democracy.
Sen. Akpabio said the Senate deliberately deleted the phrase to give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the discretion to determine the most appropriate mode of transmitting election results, warning that making real-time transmission mandatory could plunge the country into crisis in the event of network or power failures.
He spoke on Saturday in Abuja at the unveiling of a book, The Burden of Legislators in Nigeria, authored by Senator Effiong Bob.
According to the Senate President, “technology must save and not endanger democracy,” adding that rigid provisions could invalidate elections in areas affected by poor connectivity or grid collapse.
“All we said was to remove the word ‘real-time’ to allow INEC decide the mode of transmission. If you make it mandatory and there is a system failure, there will be a serious problem,” Sen. Akpabio said.
He argued that official election documents, including Form EC8A, should remain the most reliable basis for declaring results, stressing that elections must not be jeopardised by technological limitations.
“Real-time means that if there are nine states where there is no network, does it mean elections will not take place there? Or in any part of the country where there is a grid breakdown, does it mean there will be no election?” he asked.
Reacting to widespread criticism of the Senate’s action, Sen. Akpabio said lawmakers had been subjected to unwarranted attacks and abuse, particularly on television panels and social media, but maintained that the legislature would not succumb to pressure from opposition parties, civil society organisations or non-governmental organisations.
“We will not be intimidated but will do what is right for Nigeria, not what one NGO says. A retreat is not law-making,” he said.
He criticised the notion that positions agreed upon at stakeholder retreats must automatically be adopted by the Senate, arguing that such views may not reflect the interests of all parts of the country.
“Why do you think that the paper you agreed to in Lagos must be what we must approve?” he queried.
Sen. Akpabio, however, noted that the legislative process on the bill had not been concluded, assuring that there was still room for amendments. He explained that as long as the Votes and Proceedings of the Senate had not been approved, any senator could move to amend the bill.
“We can amend anything before we approve the votes and proceedings. Why abuse the Senate when what we have is incomplete?” he said.
He further observed that provisions rejected by the Senate could still be reinstated by the Conference Committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives, urging critics to exercise patience.
In a swift response, former Senate President and National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark, who chaired the occasion, cautioned Sen. Akpabio against speaking on behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
“The position of the ADC is clear: pass the bill and let INEC decide whether it can implement real-time electronic transmission or not. Don’t speak for INEC,” Sen. Mark said.
Other speakers at the event, including Akwa Ibom State Governor, Pastor Umo Eno, and the book reviewer, Professor Maxwell Gidado, commended Senator Bob for documenting the challenges faced by Nigerian legislators, describing the book as a courageous and timely intervention.
In his remarks, Sen. Bob highlighted issues confronting lawmakers, including electoral disputes, conflicts with governors and political godfathers, judicial annulment of electoral victories, and the pressure of addressing constituents’ private concerns.
“The courage to defend democracy is in the legislature and the legislators,” he said.
-
News14 hours agoNLC Threatens Nationwide Protest Over Electoral Act Amendment
-
Maritime12 hours agoOver 6,223 Seafarers Abandoned In 2025 – Says ITF
-
Maritime11 hours agoCustoms Hands Over Seized Cannabis Worths N4.7bn To NDLEA
-
Politics11 hours agoI DEFECTED OUT OF CONVICTION …NO ONE COULD’VE IMPEACHED MY LATE DEPUTY ~ DIRI
-
Politics11 hours agoWe’ve Not Recognized Any PDP Faction — INEC
-
Environment9 hours agoRivers State Government Suspend Fire Service Collection Levies
-
Sports10 hours agoArsenal Women End Man City’s Invincibility
-
News14 hours agoTinubu Embarks On Two-Day State Visit To UK, March 18