State Police: Now that the Bill has been passed…

Last Wednesday, the Senate followed the House of Representatives in passing the long-awaited constitutional amendment bill for the creation of State Police, just a day after receiving the executive bill from President Bola Tinubu. Amid the spate of insecurity in many parts of the country in recent years, the establishment of State Police has gained increasing support as a more effective response to criminality. However, the proposal has also revived concerns over the enormous powers state governors already wield. For years, many governors have been accused of dominating local government elections, intimidating political opponents and exerting undue influence over state institutions. Critics now fear that placing a constitutionally backed police force under governors’ control, without strong safeguards, could deepen political impunity and undermine civil liberties. Others, however, argue that such fears can be addressed through constitutional checks and institutional oversight, insisting that the security benefits outweigh the risks. PHILIP IBITOYE spoke with two stakeholders who support State Police but hold differing views on the safeguards contained in the bill passed by the National Assembly.

State police commissioners should have legally protected tenures —Liborous Oshoma

Liborous Oshoma is a Public Affairs analyst and legal practitioner.

IN a television interview last Wednesday, you sounded pessimistic about the future of the State Police bill before the Senate, arguing that governors should not have the power to appoint the police commissioners and suggesting the potential for abuse. Now that the Senate has joined the House of Representatives in passing the bill granting governors that power, what are your thoughts?

While the state police model will vastly improve local response times, our fear has always been that weak subnational rule-of-law cultures could turn it into localised private militias.

What would you change in the current bill?

A dual-layered accountability system is required. The states must manage daily operational logistics, but the National Assembly and independent judicial commissions must hold absolute veto powers over leadership and human rights compliance. Security reform cannot succeed without absolute institutional accountability. Therefore, I believe that there must be ironclad constitutional guardrails that can ensure that the protection of local security does not sacrifice civil liberties. There are not enough safeguards in the amendment to protect the independence of the State Police Service Commission. Consequently, it is recommended that a non-partisan State Police Service Commission should be established to handle recruitment, promotions and discipline. Provisions in the board appointments should include representatives from civil society, the judiciary, human rights groups and the Nigerian Bar Association, to be nominated by members of these bodies, to prevent political capture.

Like the removal of the governor from office, the removal of a Police Commissioner should require a two-thirds majority vote of the State House of Assembly to appoint or remove the State Commissioner of Police, after an investigation by members of the State Judicial Service Commission, thereby removing sole removal powers from the governor. The State Police Commissioner should be granted a non-renewable, legally protected fixed term to insulate operational leadership from political cycles. The State Police should be explicitly prohibited by law from interfering in electoral matters, political rallies and peaceful protests.

How should potential abuse by the government and state police forces themselves be treated?

It should be stipulated that the state forces must adhere to strict human capital, digital tracking and operational standard protocols outlined by the National Assembly. We can integrate statutory penalties within the state laws for officers executing unlawful orders that violate citizens’ fundamental human rights. The immunity clause can be amended to ensure governors can be investigated, sued or prosecuted for abusing security forces. Lastly, the National Assembly can launch an independent civilian oversight ombudsman to directly investigate public complaints of police brutality or political intimidation. Provisions can be crafted to empower high courts to issue fast-tracked injunctions against any arbitrary executive orders issued to state security apparatuses. Provisions should be made to finance the state police directly from a legally protected percentage of the Federation Account or the State Consolidated Revenue Fund and security fund arrangements, and prevent governors from using ad hoc security votes or discretionary funding to manipulate police logistics, operational budgets or welfare packages. Conclusively, sir, the culture of decay should be discouraged generally, because if our Army, Navy, Air Force and Police were properly trained and equipped to handle the situation, we would not be debating this issue today. Our institutions are ill-qualified and ill-equipped to confront modern challenges.

READ ALSO: Why state police should be implemented after 2027 elections — Peter Obi

No reason to nurse fear over state police —Bewaji, ex-Reps minority leader

Dr. Wunmi Bewaji is a constitutional lawyer and former Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.

THE Senate passed the State Police Bill last week after the House of Representatives did the same about two weeks ago. As a long-time supporter of state police yourself, what are your thoughts on both chambers voting to send this constitutional amendment bill to the State Houses of Assembly?

It is a step in the right direction, however late it might appear to be. If you remember, as far back as 1998, the creation of state police was the number one agenda in the manifesto of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), on whose platform I was elected at that time. So, it is a welcome development, however late it might appear to be. What I would have loved is for this to be located within the general demand for true federalism. You cannot have the name of Nigeria under our Constitution as agreed at the Lancaster Constitutional Conferences of 1957 and 1959, it was the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This is a federation. Any call for unity must recognise that unity is not the same thing as uniformity. You cannot have a federal state that runs a unitary police system. So, this is a step in the right direction, and the National Assembly has to be commended for that.

Some critics have said that the process that led to the passage of this bill in the National Assembly was not robust enough, mostly basing their criticisms on governors being vested with the power to appoint commissioners. Some also argue that this may cause the initiative to suffer the same fate as the Native Authority Police of the colonial era and the First Republic. What do you say to concerns like that?

Well, it is still a work in progress. The procedure for amending the law necessitates that there are other critical stakeholders, like the State Houses of Assembly, who will also make their input. But I really don’t see any justification for such fears because we are still going to debate it. Even in the existing draft, I think there have been sufficient safeguards against any abuse by state governors. If those safeguards are not enough, those making such observations should come out with their suggestions, and they can all be debated and incorporated if we all agree. This is a work in progress. This is not an Act that has been enacted or passed. It’s still being debated, so anybody who has any concern about abuse or other issues can raise such concerns because the bills are going to the 36 State Houses of Assembly to be thoroughly debated. So, I don’t think there is any cause for fear on that.