A total of 24 State Houses of Assembly have so far approved the proposed constitutional amendment for the establishment of state police, meeting the minimum requirement for the reform to proceed to the next stage of the legislative process
The Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill, chaired by the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, announced the development yesterday, saying the approvals had met the constitutional threshold required for altering the 1999 Constitution to introduce a decentralised policing system
The 24 states that have approved the proposed state police constitutional amendment bill are Adamawa, Delta, Edo, Kwara, Nasarawa, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Taraba, Zamfara, Enugu, Anambra, Imo, Ekiti, Kebbi, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Benue, Cross River, Abia, Yobe and Kaduna
An analysis of the approvals by geopolitical zone shows that the South-South has the highest number with six states: Delta, Edo, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Cross River
The South-West, South-East and North-Central have four states each The South- West states are Ogun, Osun, Oyo and Ekiti, while the South-East states are Enugu, Anambra, Imo and Abia. The North-Central include Kwara, Nasarawa, Plateau and Benue.
The North-East has three states – Adamawa, Taraba and Yobe, while the North- West also has three: Zamfara, Kebbi and Kaduna
The approval represents a major step towards the proposed restructuring of Nigeria’s policing system, which currently operates largely under a centralised arrangement through the Nigeria Police Force
Under section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, an amendment requires the support of at least two-thirds of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, representing 24 states, before it can proceed to presidential assent
The proposed amendment is intended to provide for a dual policing structure comprising a Federal Police Service and State Police Services, allowing state governments to establish police services within a national legal and regulatory framework
However, meeting the required number of state approvals does not mean that state police can begin operations immediately as further constitutional and legislative steps are still required
The bill, known as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, was passed by the Senate on June 24 and subsequently by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2026
The Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, transmitted the bill to the 36 State Houses of Assembly on September 16 for consideration and approval, in line with the constitutional amendment procedure
Although the National Assembly requested the state legislatures to communicate their decisions within 30 days, the clerk clarified that the period was an administrative expectation rather than a constitutionally binding deadline
The push for state police has gained momentum amid persistent security challenges across the country, including kidnapping, banditry, terrorism, communal violence and other criminal activities
Supporters of the proposal argue that decentralising policing would improve intelligence gathering, strengthen community policing and enable law enforcement agencies to respond more quickly to security threats peculiar to individual states and communities
They also contend that officers recruited and deployed within their states could develop a better understanding of local terrain, criminal networks and community dynamics
However, concerns have been raised over the possibility of governors using state police to intimidate political opponents and critics, as well as questions about funding, recruitment, operational independence, human rights protection and accountability
The passage of the executive bill officially sets the stage to dismantle the decades-old unitary structure of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and replace it with a dual model, comprising the Federal Police Service and State Police Services
Under the newly substituted section 214 of the constitution, the Federal Police Service retains absolute monopoly over major security sectors, ensuring that the federal government remains the ultimate custodian of the country’s territorial integrity The Federal Police will maintain exclusive jurisdiction over National security, terrorism, and cybercrime; inter-state crimes, arms-trafficking, and international crime syndicates.
The bill clarifies that while state police will manage domestic public safety, they are completely barred from cross-border law enforcement A State Police Service shall not exercise police powers outside the borders of the state for which it is established, except as specifically authorised by an Act of the National Assembly.
Section 214 provides: “There shall be a police service for the federation to be known as the Federal Police Service There shall be established for each state of the federation a State Police Service subject to this constitution and an Act of the National Assembly. No State Police Service shall commence operational policing unless it has been established by a law of the House of Assembly of the state and certified as meeting national minimum standards in the manner prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”
One of the most intensely debated aspects of the bill centres on the federal government’s veto power to override state control The legislation empowers the president to bypass state governors and temporarily assume direct operational command of any State Police Service under strict exceptional metrics.
The conditions under which a federal takeover can occur are explicitly detailed to prevent arbitrary federal interference, while ensuring that rogue or incapacitated state police forces are quickly brought to heel These triggers include: where there is an actual or imminent breakdown of public order or public safety, which the State Police Service is unable or unwilling to contain; the State Police Service is unable to function by reason of serious administrative, financial, operational or other incapacity; there is substantial evidence that the State Police Service is being used for egregious or systematic violation of fundamental rights, partisan or electoral intimidation, ethnic, religious or sectional persecution, or unlawful obstruction of this constitution.”
The bill stipulates that such federal interventions must be authorised in writing by the president, explicitly stating the grounds, targeted territory and expected duration of the takeover Furthermore, a formal notice of the intervention must be transmitted to the affected state governor, Speaker of the State House of Assembly, the National Police Council and the National Assembly within 48 hours of execution.
To prevent indefinite federal occupation, the bill notes that no intervention can continue beyond a period prescribed by the National Assembly, and must be validated by a resolution supported by the Senate Crucially, the legality, scope and duration of such look-ins remain fully subject to judicial review by the courts.
To insulate the leadership of both policing tiers from political manipulation, the bill introduced a rigid tenure system and strict guidelines for the removal of police chiefs
The Federal Police Service will be headed by an Inspector-General of Police appointed by the president on the advice of the National Police Council, subject to Senate confirmation
Conversely, the State Police Service will be headed by a commissioner of police appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the National Police Council, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly
Crucially, neither the IGP nor a state commissioner of police can be ‘whimsically’ suspended or removed from office by the executive arms of government Removal can only be triggered for “stated cause” in accordance with a fair hearing, and must be approved by a two-thirds majority resolution of either the Senate (for the IGP) or the respective State House of Assembly (for a state commissioner).
Furthermore, section 215(7) places a strict prohibition on political directives: “No direction under this section shall require the arrest, detention, investigation, non-investigation, deployment or use of force against any named person, political party, association or class of persons except in accordance with law, or require a police service to suppress lawful political activity, discriminate against any person or group, or enforce the law for a partisan, ethnic, religious, sectional or personal purpose”
With the required 24 state approval threshold secured, the National Assembly is expected to receive and verify the resolutions of the state legislatures before proceeding with the next steps in the constitutional amendment process
The constitutional amendment for the establishment of state police can then be transmitted to the president for assent in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the National Assembly
Meanwhile, the ongoing legal review and validation process of the draft National Policing Bill must be finalised and presented to the president for consideration and subsequent transmission to the National Assembly
The National Assembly will then have to consider and pass the operational legislation required to give effect to the proposed policing structure
States will also need to enact their own enabling laws and satisfy the prescribed readiness and certification requirements before their police services can commence operations
The proposed reform therefore remains a process involving constitutional amendment, federal legislation and state-level implementation rather than an immediate transfer of policing powers to state governments
The key outstanding issues include the final provisions of the National Policing Bill, the safeguards against political interference, the funding arrangements for state police and the mechanisms for coordinating operations between federal and state security agencies
Although the 24-state threshold marks a significant legislative milestone, the actual commencement of state police will depend on the completion of the remaining legal and institutional requirements in the months ahead