ONCE AGAIN: ON “STATE POLICE”

It has been reported that the Inspector-General of Police has submitted a roadmap for the implementation of “State Police.”

At first glance, the roadmap appears comprehensive. It outlines familiar bureaucratic elements, to wit: decentralization, oversight mechanisms, accountability frameworks, body cameras, ombudsmen, and the now-standard language of “community policing.”

But these are procedural details.

For the Yoruba Referendum Committee, the central question is far more fundamental: what is the true purpose, the raison d’être of State Police?

According to the roadmap, a dual structure is proposed: a Federal Police Service responsible for national security, terrorism, interstate crime, and protection of federal assets while State Police formations are limited to localized crimes such as armed robbery, homicide, domestic violence, and community-level intelligence gathering.

This distinction is revealing and deeply problematic.

For years, the primary justification for State Police has been the urgent need to confront terrorism and banditry-the most existential threats to lives, communities, and national stability. Indeed, many advocates presented State Police as a step toward True Federalism, where Federating units would possess the authority and capacity to secure themselves.

Yet, under this roadmap, that core responsibility is explicitly removed.

Terrorism-the very reason State Police gained traction, is now reserved exclusively for a centralized Federal Police. What remains for State Police is a narrow, secondary role.

What, then, is being proposed is no longer State Police in any meaningful Federal sense. It is a shadow structure: devolved in form, but hollow in substance.

Worse still, this arrangement does not advance Federalism; it actively undermines it.

Nigeria’s existing security architecture has already demonstrated its inability to effectively combat terrorism. This reality was underscored recently when the Chief of Defense Staff, speaking at the Nigerian Armed Forces’ inaugural lecture in Abuja, advocated for the rehabilitation of “repentant terrorists”-a policy that has been in place since at least 2015, yet has yielded no measurable reduction in terrorist activity.

And yet, this same central structure, already overstretched and ineffective, is now to retain exclusive control over the most critical security function.

This is not reform.

It is repetition.

The roadmap also proposes a 60-month (five-year) phased implementation, beginning with Constitutional amendments.

This raises further concerns.

First, it ignores the existence of multiple state-level security initiatives such as Amotekun which are already attempting, within constraints, to fill the security vacuum. A five-year transition plan that fails to integrate or meaningfully empower these existing structures merely prolongs the current dysfunction.

Second, the timeline contradicts repeated assurances by the present administration that political restructuring would follow economic reforms. Even under the most generous assumptions, including a second presidential term, the proposed timeline extends beyond the practical window for implementation.

Third, the roadmap’s reliance on Constitutional amendments is itself questionable. Since 1999, Nigeria’s Constitution has undergone continuous “alterations,” often without addressing its foundational defects. If amendments can be made in the first year, they can just as easily be reversed or diluted in subsequent years, especially beyond the tenure of the current administration.

In effect, the process lacks permanence, legitimacy, and coherence.

Another critical issue arises from the proposal that up to 60% of existing police personnel would transition into State Police structures.

This immediately raises the question: what becomes of existing regional security outfits?

Within the logic of the roadmap, such formations are either:

• Absorbed into a loosely defined “community policing” framework; or
• Rendered redundant.

Neither option strengthens security. Both dilute initiatives.

More fundamentally, the proposed funding model, allocating 3% of the Federation Account to State Police reveals the underlying contradiction.

Rather than empowering states, this arrangement deepens their dependence on the Centre.

State Police, under such a structure, would not be autonomous. They would function as extensions of a centralized fiscal system which will be no different from current state governments whose survival depends on federal allocations.

This is not decentralization.

It is centralization by another name.

We have seen this pattern before.

Local Government allocations are controlled by the Centre.
Development Commissions are centrally funded and directed.

Each “reform” promises autonomy but delivers dependence.

The inevitable consequence is predictable: an intensified struggle to control the Centre, since that is where real power resides.

This is the contradiction at the heart of incremental, piecemeal approaches to Federalism. Instead of moving Nigeria toward genuine decentralization, they entrench the very centralization they claim to dismantle.

This moment, therefore, demands clarity.

Nigeria’s security crisis cannot be solved by administrative rearrangements within a structurally defective system. It requires a fundamental rethinking of the Constitutional order.

This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee continues to advocate Nationality Referendums as the only credible pathway forward.

For the Yoruba, this will be the “Yoruba Referendum”

A Referendum is not merely a political exercise. It is the basis of legitimacy, validity, and legality in Constitution-making. It stands in stark contrast to the serial amendments that have characterized Nigeria’s constitutional history since 1999.

Amendments that tinker at the edges while leaving the core untouched.

In this regard, the Committee aligns with the position advanced by Chief Wole Olanipekun, who has called on the National Assembly to suspend its ongoing amendment process and instead pursue the creation of an Autochthonous Constitution as a foundational document derived from the will of the people through Referendums.

This is the path to a new social order.

It is also the path to meaningful security.

As outlined in the Annexure to the Draft Referendum Bill already submitted to the Houses of Assembly in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo States, the proposed framework is clear:

• Judicial authority resides within the Region, with a structured hierarchy of courts up to a Regional Supreme Court.
• Governance is organized at regional and provincial levels, ensuring proximity and accountability.
• Crucially, the Region maintains its own internal security system.

This is not theoretical.

It is a coherent institutional framework that directly addresses the failures of the current system.

Security, in this model, is not outsourced to distant authorities. It is rooted in the community, legitimized by the people, and enforced through institutions that are accountable to them.

This is what Federalism looks like in practice.

The debate on State Police, as currently framed, is therefore a distraction.

It offers the appearance of reform without its substance.

It substitutes structure with procedure.

It avoids the central question: who truly holds power over security-the people, or a distant Centre?

Until that question is answered honestly, Nigeria will continue to cycle through reforms that change nothing.

The time has come to move beyond incrementalism.

The time has come to confront the structural reality.

And the time has come to return sovereignty to the people through the Referendum, through legitimacy, and through a Constitution that reflects their will.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee