Opinion
State Police And Food Security In Nigeria
As part of the measures to address the increasing prices of food and hunger in the country, the federal government on Tuesday disclosed its plan to release food from the storage facilities across the country. Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, who made this known after a meeting of the Presidential Committee on Emergency Food Intervention in Abuja, said President Bola Tinubu is concerned about the pains Nigerians are going through as it concerns food availability and affordability and is taking concrete steps to alleviate the suffering. Nigerians need to be thankful to the women and youth of Niger State, who earlier in the week took to the streets of the state capital, Minna, to protest against hunger and hardship in the nation. That action has awoken the authorities from their slumber and they are now running helter skelter to see that more food is made available to the citizens.
Incidentally, even the government knows that the release of food from the National Food Reserve is just a stopgap measure to the serious problem and that the sooner actions that will bring about permanent solutions to that challenge and stop Nigerians from dying of hunger and starvation were taken, the better for the country. How long will the food to be released last? And what is the assurance that when it is released it will get to poor masses? How are we sure that the politicians and those in the chain of distribution will not divert a greater quantity to themselves and release just a handful to the public? The federal government needs to show more commitment to the challenges facing the country. There should be sincere efforts towards dealing with the deplorable state of security across many parts of the country, including the Federal Capital Territory. It is no news that many farmers can no longer access their farm lands for fear of being killed or kidnapped by terrorists and bandits. Consider the latest attacks in Plateau and Benue States which left hundreds of people dead, their houses destroyed and bags of their harvested grains carted away by the bandits.
A particular farmer from Kaduna State recently told a story of how, upon losing his job in a furniture company in Abuja, he borrowed money from a money lending institution to go into farming. It was a bumper harvest for him as he got over 40 big bags of maize and beans. He had negotiated with the buyers and was waiting for them to come, pay and carry them when bandits invaded his village and carried all the bags of grains, including his hoes.The most painful thing is that he, just like many other farmers who take the risk of going to farms to produce food for Nigerians to eat, “settled” the bandits heavily to enable him access his farms and do any farm work. So, it is imperative that the government sincerely deals with insecurity in the nation to enable farmers to go back to their villages and farms. And with the current level of insecurity, the sophistication and all that, it is obvious that the 370, 000 federal policemen can no longer cater for the security of the over 200million Nigerian population. Police devolution is absolutely important now more than ever before to ensure adequate security of lives and property of Nigerians. The clamour for state police must be considered now. Yes, over the years, there has been an argument that Nigeria is not ripe for state police because governors, politicians and well-to-do people in the states will abuse the police and use them for the oppression and intimidation of their opponents and the poor.
Valid as that proposition may be, it lacks substantive weight when weighed against the gains of state police in the present daunting security challenges in the country. Last week, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors forum, for the umpteenth time, made a case for state police, saying that the decentralisation of the security apparatus, including the police, will go a long way in addressing the current security challenges facing the country. Speaking during a visit to Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State, the governors noted that “The ratio of police to the citizens is very low and the governors know the peculiarity of their states and how to tackle this challenge.”Similarly, the governor of Anambra State, Chukwuma Soludo, during a book launch a few days ago, noted that decentralisation of the police, strengthening of the institutions and a review of the 1999 Constitution are inevitable steps to take towards addressing insecurity and other challenges facing the country. Some past leaders like Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, some notable religious, ethnic and professional groups have also lent their voices to the clamour for decentralisation of police as a way of stemming insecurity in Nigeria
. It is important that authorities, particularly the National Assembly set politics aside, reconsider the traditional centralised law enforcement model and explore the benefits that state police could bring to the table and take necessary steps to actualise it.One of the benefits of state police is depth of localised expertise. Nigeria is a nation with distinct cultural, social, and economic differences among its states. State police forces, intimately familiar with the dynamics of their respective regions, are better positioned to address and prevent crime effectively. This local knowledge can enhance community policing initiatives, fostering trust and collaboration between law enforcement and the public. A major advantage of state police is quick response. In almost all the attacks in communities across the country, the survivors narrate how the late arrival of the police or other law enforcement to the scene resulted in more damage and deaths. In a country as vast and varied as ours, response time is crucial. State police can provide quicker responses to incidents within their jurisdiction, minimising the impact of criminal activities. Moreover, the flexibility inherent in state police allows for the development of tailored policing strategies, addressing specific challenges unique to each state. Also, State police, by virtue of being closer to the communities they serve, have the potential to build stronger relationships with residents.
This proximity not only facilitates better understanding of local issues but also encourages citizens’ participation in crime prevention efforts. Increase trust between law enforcement and the public can contribute significantly to maintaining peace and order.Many times, we have heard some state governors lament over their inabilities to curtail raging crime and insecurity in their domain because the state police commissioners would not take instructions from them rather they wait for directives from Abuja. Most times, before the directive comes a great harm must have been done. It therefore makes a great sense that the police are decentralised to give the governors more power over the security affairs of their states. It is a known fact that the bulk of the financing of the federal police is done by the state governors. So, financing the state police might not be a big issue as being speculated by some people. Rather, as State police allow for a more localised approach to resource allocation, states can tailor their budgets and resources to address specific security challenges prevalent in their regions. This ensures that law enforcement agencies are equipped to handle the issues most pressing to their communities, leading to more efficient resource utilisation
However, despite the immense benefits of state police, the concerns about potential abuse of power, political interference, and coordination issues between states must be addressed. Implementing robust oversight mechanisms, strict adherence to professional standards, and fostering inter-agency collaboration can mitigate these risks. Conclusively, the establishment of state police in Nigeria represents a crucial step towards enhancing the nation’s security apparatus. Recognising the unique needs of each state and empowering local law enforcement to address these needs directly can lead to a more effective and responsive policing system. Striking the right balance between local autonomy and centralised coordination is key to navigating the challenges and reaping the benefits of a state police system in Nigeria. It is time for the nation to embrace this reform and work towards a safer and more secure future and availability of food at affordable prices for all its citizens.
Calista Ezeaku
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
