STATE POLICE SHALL BE THE LIKEN OF STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS (SIECs)
Decentralising Insecurity and Political Oppression in the Name of Federalism –
By Dahiru Yusuf Yabo Political & Security Analyst
The loud campaign for State Police is being sold to Nigerians as the magic bullet for insecurity. Its proponents speak of local intelligence, rapid response, community ownership, and true federalism. These arguments sound attractive. They are also dangerously incomplete.
Before handing governors armed police formations, Nigerians must ask one simple question:
What have governors done with the powers they already possess?
The answer lies in the shameful history of State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs).
For over two decades, SIECs have become perhaps the greatest mockery of democracy in Nigeria. Election after election, governors have converted local government polls into coronations. Opposition parties hardly win a seat. Results are often known before voting begins. Entire councils are routinely allocated to ruling parties with embarrassing 100 percent victories.
Nobody believes SIECs are independent.
Nobody believes governors do not control them.
Nobody believes local government elections conducted by SIECs reflect the will of the people.
Yet we are now expected to believe that the same political class that has captured SIECs will suddenly respect the independence of State Police.
That assumption defies both logic and experience.
A governor who can dictate candidates, dominate the State Assembly, influence traditional institutions, intimidate political opponents, and control state resources will inevitably seek to control the police commissioner responsible for enforcing law and order.
The proposed constitutional safeguards are comforting on paper.
Nigeria, however, is governed by realities, not by paperwork.
The same constitution guarantees local government autonomy.
The same constitution guarantees separation of powers.
The same constitution guarantees independent institutions.
Yet governors routinely undermine all three.
Why should State Police be different?
The danger is not merely theoretical.
A politically captured State Police could become a weapon for:
Harassment of opposition figures.
Suppression of dissent.
Intimidation during elections.
Selective prosecution.
Ethnic and religious profiling.
Political vendettas disguised as law enforcement.
In such circumstances, State Police would not fight insecurity. They would institutionalise insecurity for those outside the ruling political establishment.
Even more troubling is the financial reality.
Many states struggle to pay salaries, pensions, gratuities, and basic obligations. If states cannot adequately fund teachers, doctors, and civil servants, how will they sustain a professional police service equipped with modern intelligence systems, forensic laboratories, surveillance technology, communications infrastructure, and continuous training?
An underfunded police force is not a security solution. It is a recruitment centre for corruption.
The truth is that Nigeria’s insecurity is not primarily a consequence of police centralisation. It is the product of weak intelligence, porous borders, corruption, poor governance, political interference, judicial delays, and the absence of modern security architecture.
State Police risks decentralising these weaknesses rather than eliminating them.
The lesson of SIECs should serve as a national warning.
The same governors who transformed supposedly independent electoral commissions into political departments of Government House cannot be entrusted with armed institutions without extraordinary safeguards.
Nigeria must not repeat with guns what it has already failed with ballot papers.
If SIECs became instruments for manufacturing electoral victories, State Police may become instruments for manufacturing political obedience.
The nation should therefore proceed with extreme caution.
For while democracy can survive a compromised election commission, it may not survive thirty-six politically controlled police forces.
That is not federalism.
That is the decentralisation of coercion.
And history teaches us that when coercion becomes localised and partisan, liberty is usually the first casualty.
Dahiru Yusuf Yabo PGD-CMPC, MCM & MPPAPolitical & Security Analyst