State Police Won’t Save Nigeria, History Warns It Could Make Our Democracy More Dangerous

Every few years, whenever insecurity worsens, the call for state police returns with renewed urgency. Governors, political leaders, and policy experts argue that decentralizing policing is the missing piece in Nigeria's security architecture.

Photo by Andrea Ferrario on Unsplash

It sounds persuasive.

But history tells a far more complicated story.

Before Nigeria embraces state police, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: we have experimented with locally controlled policing before—and the results should make every democrat pause.

The Ghost of the Native Authority Police

Long before the Nigeria Police Force became the country's sole police institution, Nigeria operated Native Authority Police under regional and local administrations.

In theory, they existed to maintain law and order.

In practice, they frequently became instruments of political control.

Across different regions, Native Authority Police were often accused of intimidating political opponents, suppressing dissent, and protecting those who controlled local government. Rather than serving the public, they were frequently seen as serving the politicians who appointed and directed them.

The abuse of these forces became one of the reasons successive governments moved toward a centralized police system after the First Republic.

Nigeria has lived this experiment before.

It did not end well.

Have Nigerian Politicians Changed?

Supporters of state police insist that today's democracy offers stronger safeguards.

But have the incentives changed?

Governors already wield enormous influence over local government finances, traditional institutions, and political structures within their states.

Many critics argue that adding direct command over an armed police service could further concentrate power in the hands of state executives.

Nigeria has witnessed repeated accusations of political intimidation during elections.

Imagine those same contests if every governor also controlled a police force answerable primarily to the state government.

That possibility deserves serious reflection.

The Zamfara Example

The debate also recalls the administration of former Zamfara governor Ahmed Sani Yerima, whose introduction of Sharia law sparked intense national debate over the relationship between state governments, law enforcement, and constitutional authority.

Regardless of where one stands on that policy, it demonstrated how significantly security and law enforcement priorities can differ from one state to another.

If governors acquire full policing powers, similar political or ideological differences could shape policing in ways that vary dramatically across Nigeria.

The question is not whether every governor would abuse such authority.

It is whether Nigeria's institutions are strong enough to prevent those who might.

The Bakassi Boys Lesson

Another cautionary tale is the Bakassi Boys.

The group emerged in the late 1990s because communities felt abandoned by conventional policing.

Initially celebrated for confronting armed robbery, they later faced widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings, torture, and political use in some states.

Their trajectory illustrates how security outfits created to solve one problem can evolve in ways their founders never intended.

History suggests that once armed organizations become intertwined with politics, separating the two becomes exceedingly difficult.

Fix the Police Before Replacing It

Ironically, many of the arguments advanced in favour of state police point to genuine problems within the Nigeria Police Force.

Poor funding.

Inadequate equipment.

Low morale.

Insufficient training.

Weak forensic capacity.

Political interference.

Corruption.

These are real challenges.

But none of them automatically disappear simply because policing becomes decentralized.

A poorly funded federal police can easily become thirty-six poorly funded state police organizations.

Changing the structure without fixing the underlying problems risks multiplying them.

Do Some Politicians Benefit From Weak Institutions?

Many Nigerians believe that weak policing creates space for political patronage, private security networks, and the recruitment of political thugs during elections.

Whether or not one accepts that view in its entirety, it is difficult to ignore that security institutions have often become entangled with political competition.

That reality should make Nigerians cautious about granting even greater coercive powers to political officeholders without robust checks and balances.

The objective should be to build professional police institutions—not institutions that can be captured by whichever political party controls a state government.

Governors Are Not Kings

Nigeria's governors already exercise considerable executive authority.

A democratic society must always ask where power ends and accountability begins.

State police may strengthen local security in some places.

But they could also make it easier for less accountable administrations to intimidate critics, suppress opposition, or influence elections if effective safeguards fail.

Democracy depends not only on good leaders but also on institutions that restrain bad ones.

History teaches that concentrating coercive power without equally strong oversight is rarely a safe bargain.

The Better Path

Rather than creating state police immediately, Nigeria should first reform the Nigeria Police Force.

Improve officer welfare.

Modernize investigations.

Deploy technology.

Strengthen intelligence gathering.

Insulate policing from partisan politics.

Punish corruption.

Build public trust.

Only after those foundations are firmly established should the country revisit the question of decentralizing police powers.

Because history offers a simple warning.

When politicians control the police, the police can stop serving the people.

And when that happens, democracy itself begins to lose its strongest defender.