Security, Federalism and the Imperative of Constitutional Evolution
History teaches a simple but profound lesson: when a State struggles to guarantee the safety of its citizens, every other promise of government becomes uncertain. Economic prosperity retreats before insecurity. Education suffers, when children fear going to school. Agriculture declines, when farmers abandon their lands. Investment evaporates, where criminality flourishes. Ultimately, the legitimacy of government itself, is tested by its capacity to secure lives and property.
It is therefore, no coincidence that the framers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), placed security at the heart of governance. Section 14(2)(b) provides in clear and unequivocal terms: “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”
This constitutional declaration, is neither ornamental nor aspirational. It is the foundational obligation of the Nigerian State. Every institution of government derives legitimacy, from its capacity to fulfil this sacred constitutional mandate.
Today, however, Nigeria confronts a security reality, vastly different from that contemplated by earlier generations. Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, farmer-herder conflicts, communal violence, organised crime, cybercrime and transnational criminal networks have exposed the limitations of a highly centralised security architecture.
At the centre of this debate lies Section 214(1) of the Constitution, which provides:
“There shall be a police force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force and, subject to the provisions of this section, no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.”
For decades, this provision has maintained an exclusive Federal monopoly over policing. While conceived with the legitimate objective of preserving national unity, experience has demonstrated that a nation of over 200 million people, spread across diverse ethnic, linguistic, geographical and cultural communities, cannot indefinitely rely upon a singular centrally controlled policing structure.
The question before Nigeria today is therefore, not whether security should remain a national responsibility. I firmly believe it must. The question, is whether security can be more effectively achieved through a constitutional framework that combines Federal coordination with local responsiveness.
The growing consensus across the Federation, suggests that the answer lies in the establishment of State Police.
State Police as a Fulfilment of Federalism
The agitation for State Police, is often misunderstood as a call for fragmentation. It is nothing of the sort.
Rather, it is a call for the completion of Nigeria’s Federal project.
Federalism is not merely a constitutional arrangement; it is a philosophy of governance founded upon the principle that, public authority should be exercised at the level closest to the people, except where compelling national interests require otherwise.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the Federal character of the Nigerian constitutional order. In Attorney-General of Ogun State v Attorney-General of the Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 583, the Court emphasised and rightly so, that powers within the Federation are constitutionally distributed between the Federal Government and the States.
Similarly, in Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that neither level of government is intended to be subordinate to the other within its constitutional sphere.
The logic underlying these decisions is unmistakable: Federalism thrives where responsibility follows capacity, and where governance remains responsive to local realities.
Security therefore, is no exception.
A Police officer recruited from, familiar with, and accountable to a local community possesses advantages that no centrally deployed officer can easily replicate. Such an officer understands local languages, customs, terrain, social networks and emerging threats. He is not merely stationed within the community; he is part of it.
Sir Robert Peel, regarded as the father of modern policing, famously observed: “The Police are the public, and the public are the Police.”
This principle remains as relevant today, as it was in nineteenth-century England. Effective policing depends not merely on force, but on trust, local intelligence and community cooperation.
State Police, it must be emphasised, seeks to institutionalise these principles within the Nigerian Federation.
Comparative Lessons from Successful Federations
Nigeria’s current centralised policing arrangement, is increasingly an anomaly among Federal systems.
The United States operates Federal, State, County and Municipal Police institutions. Canada combines Federal policing with Provincial and local police services. Germany, Australia and India similarly maintain multi-layered policing structures, that reflect their Federal character.
James Madison, one of the principal architects of American federalism, explained in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments, are numerous and indefinite.”
The wisdom behind this principle lies in the recognition that governance becomes more effective when local institutions are empowered to address local challenges.
Nigeria’s security challenges increasingly demand a similar constitutional evolution.
Decentralisation as a Safeguard Against Abuse
Paradoxically, one of the strongest arguments for State Police is not merely efficiency, but liberty. The concentration of coercive power in a single institution, has always troubled constitutional thinkers.
More details here...
