By Adeola Adekunle Omosola
The Nigerian Senate's passage of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026 was expected to mark a major turning point in the country's long-running debate on security decentralisation.
Instead, the proposed legislation has triggered a fresh wave of controversy, with critics questioning whether the bill truly grants states meaningful policing powers or merely creates a new security structure that remains firmly under federal control.
Amotekun, Ebube Agu, Hisbah Shut Out
One of the most contentious provisions in the bill is the exclusion of existing regional and state-backed security outfits from automatically becoming state police agencies.
Under Section 25(5), organisations such as Amotekun, Ebube Agu, Hisbah, vigilante groups, neighbourhood watch outfits and other local security structures cannot automatically transition into State Police Services once the law takes effect.
The provision also prohibits such organisations from exercising police powers or bearing firearms unless expressly authorised by the Constitution and an Act of the National Assembly.
For many supporters of state policing, particularly in the South-West, the clause represents a significant setback.
Amotekun, established by South-West governors to combat kidnapping, banditry and other security threats, has been widely regarded as one of the most successful regional security initiatives in recent years. Critics argue that forcing states to establish entirely new police structures disregards years of investment, experience and operational success.
Federal Government Still Holds the Big Stick?
Beyond the Amotekun controversy, another provision drawing scrutiny is the extensive intervention power reserved for the Federal Police Service.
According to Section 15(10) of the bill, the Federal Police Service may step into a state's security affairs and temporarily take over operational control of a State Police Service under certain circumstances.
These include:
- Actual or imminent breakdown of public order;
- Failure or inability of a state police service to contain security threats;
- Situations deemed a threat to national security;
- Cases involving serious abuse of police powers.
While supporters argue that such safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse of state police by governors and political actors, critics see the provision as evidence that Abuja would still retain substantial control over security operations nationwide.
Autonomy or Supervision?
For years, advocates of state police have argued that Nigeria's highly centralised security system has become overstretched and ineffective in addressing local security challenges.
The expectation was that state police would allow governors and local authorities to respond more quickly to threats within their jurisdictions.
However, analysts are now asking whether true decentralisation can exist when the Federal Government retains the constitutional power to intervene and assume operational command whenever it considers it necessary.
Senate Defends the Safeguards
Senate leaders and proponents of the bill insist that the controversial provisions are not designed to undermine state policing but to protect national security and ensure professional standards across the federation.
According to lawmakers, the safeguards are intended to prevent state police from becoming political tools in the hands of governors while maintaining accountability and operational consistency nationwide.
The Bigger Question
As debate intensifies, many observers believe the legislation leaves one crucial question unanswered:
Can Nigeria genuinely claim to have state police if existing regional security outfits are excluded and the Federal Government retains broad powers to intervene and take control?
For supporters of decentralised policing, the answer may determine whether the bill becomes a landmark security reform—or simply another layer in Nigeria's already ccomplex security architecture.
