28 Nigerian State Assemblies Approve State Police Amendment

Twenty-eight Nigerian State Houses of Assembly have approved a proposed constitutional amendment to establish state police, moving the country closer to a major change in how policing is organised.

The approval, confirmed by the National Assembly on November 3, 2026, exceeds the constitutional requirement of support from at least 24 of Nigeria's 36 state legislatures.

The development is a significant step in a reform proposal that has attracted years of debate, particularly as concerns about insecurity continue across different parts of the country.

However, the approval does not mean state police forces can begin operating immediately. Further constitutional and legislative processes must be completed before the proposed system can become operational.

According to Kamoru Ogunlana, Clerk to the National Assembly, the proposed amendment was transmitted to all 36 State Houses of Assembly on September 16, 2026, for consideration and approval.

The state legislatures were initially asked to communicate their decisions within 30 days, with the deadline falling on October 15.

Following the submission and verification of the reports and accompanying records of proceedings, the National Assembly confirmed that 28 assemblies had approved the bill.

The figure is important because Section 9 of Nigeria's 1999 Constitution requires approval from at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly for a constitutional alteration of this nature.

With the required threshold surpassed, the National Assembly says it is undertaking the administrative processes needed to transmit the amendment to President Bola Tinubu for assent.

But why has the idea of state police become such an important issue in Nigeria?

At present, Nigeria operates a centralised policing system. The Nigeria Police Force is a federal institution, with its command structure operating nationally rather than through separate police forces controlled by individual state governments.

Although governors are regarded as their states' chief security officers, they do not have direct operational control over the police commands within their territories.

This arrangement has remained a subject of debate, particularly as security threats vary considerably across the country.

Some communities face kidnapping and banditry. Others deal with communal violence, terrorism, organised crime, oil theft and other security challenges.

Supporters of state police argue that a single national police structure may struggle to respond effectively to the different security conditions across 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

Their argument is that allowing states to establish their own police services could bring law enforcement closer to the communities it serves.

For example, officers operating within a particular state could develop stronger knowledge of local communities, languages, movement patterns and security concerns.

They could also potentially respond more quickly to incidents without depending entirely on a central command structure to coordinate every operational decision.

A state dealing with recurring kidnapping incidents, for instance, might want to organise its policing resources around the specific communities and routes affected by the problem.

Similarly, a state experiencing recurring communal conflicts could develop local intelligence and response arrangements that reflect its particular security environment.

However, these are potential advantages, not guaranteed outcomes. Establishing additional police forces does not automatically mean that crime will fall or that investigations will become more effective.

The proposal also raises difficult questions about how much power state governors should have over police officers.

One of the major concerns surrounding state police is the possibility of political interference.

Governors are elected political officeholders. If they control police institutions without sufficiently independent oversight, critics fear those forces could be used to intimidate political opponents, influence elections or suppress legitimate protests.

There are also concerns about human rights, accountability and whether officers would be able to carry out their duties without undue pressure from powerful individuals.

These questions are particularly important because policing involves the use of public authority, including the power to arrest, investigate and use force within the limits of the law.

The financial implications are another challenge.

Establishing a functional police service requires more than recruiting officers and providing uniforms.

States would need to fund salaries, training academies, vehicles, communication systems, forensic facilities, intelligence operations, equipment and other essential infrastructure.

There would also need to be clear arrangements for cooperation between state police services and the existing federal police structure.

Criminal activities do not always stop at state boundaries. Kidnapping networks, organised crime groups and other security threats can operate across several states.

A decentralised system would therefore need effective intelligence-sharing and coordination mechanisms to prevent gaps between federal and state authorities.

There is also the question of whether every state can afford to maintain a properly equipped police force. States with stronger revenue bases may have greater financial capacity than those that depend heavily on federal allocations.

Without appropriate funding standards and oversight, decentralisation could produce significant differences in the quality of policing available to Nigerians depending on where they live.

These concerns explain why the proposal's eventual implementation will require more than constitutional approval.

The development also follows earlier legislative progress at the National Assembly. Both chambers had advanced the constitutional amendment before it was sent to the state legislatures for the required approvals.

[LINK: Earlier report on the National Assembly's state police reform]

The latest confirmation therefore represents another important stage in a process that has attracted support and criticism from different political and security stakeholders.

For supporters, the proposal offers an opportunity to rethink how Nigeria organises public security and gives states a more direct role in addressing local threats.

For critics, the central issue is whether state governments can exercise policing powers without turning them into instruments of political control.

Both questions will matter as the country moves towards the next stage.

If the amendment receives the necessary final approval and the relevant laws and institutions are established, Nigeria could eventually operate a dual policing arrangement in which federal and state police services function alongside one another.

That would represent a major change to the country's security architecture.

But the real test will not simply be how many states establish police services or how quickly they recruit officers.

It will be whether the new institutions can investigate crimes professionally, protect citizens' rights, cooperate across jurisdictions and remain accountable to the public.

For now, 28 state approvals have taken the proposal past a major constitutional hurdle. The country is closer to a decentralised policing system than it was before, but the work of determining how that system should operate is far from over.