State police: To be or not to be

BY ISMAIL OMIPIDAN

As a media consultant to the senate committee on constitution review in the 7th Senate, and as someone who worked very closely with the former deputy president of the senate, Ike Ekweremadu, I have followed closely the debate for and against decentralised policing system, otherwise known as state police and I have come to the conclusion that it is the way to go if we are serious about confronting our security challenge frontally. Sadly, the antagonists only have one fear: Abuse!

But Ekweremadu has always argued that the current centralised policing system being operated in Nigeria is one of the major factors that have been blamed for the insecurity in Nigeria.

While highlighting some of the factors for and against a decentralised policing system in Nigeria, with examples drawn from other foreign countries to buttress his points, Ekweremadu said: “I think the strongest arguments or fear among the opponents of a decentralised police system is the likelihood of abuse by interests, notably the state governors. The problem with this paranoid disposition, however, is that it looks at the state police as the property of the elite, especially the governors rather than as an institution of state. As such, it still sees Nigeria from the prisms of the colonial era and early years of independence, thus failing to take cognisance of the transformations that have taken place in terms of awareness and laws over the years.”

He further noted that the other pertinent question to ask was whether the solely federal police have not also been grossly abused by the high and mighty.

He said “I do not think Nigerians, especially Anambra people will forget in a hurry the attempted coup in Awka in 2003. A top brass of the police physically supervised the abduction of an incumbent state governor and purported chief security officer of a federating unit from office. This, to me, is the height of abuse of the police force. My answer to this would therefore be that if the governors are likely to abuse the state police, then make provisions in law that will make it impossible for them to do so. Make stringent provisions in law that can mete out sanctions where such abuses occur.”

On the argument that states in Nigeria would not be able to fund a decentralised policing system, Ekweremadu again said: “Whereas some states are financially constrained due to our highly entrenched culture of ‘feeding bottle federalism,’ this argument is perceived to be incongruent with the constitutional provision that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. So, a state government that allocates security votes running into hundreds of millions to a governor on a monthly basis, but claims to lack the financial capacity to fund the primary purpose of government must be a strange one.

“Instructively, our states spend heavily on funding the Nigeria Police through logistical supports like patrol vans, etc. So, many states are already funding various types of state police under various guises. They include vigilance which are very popular here in Anambra. We have the Hisbah in Kano and in many other states, just as we have various forms of state-funded security/vigilance outfits across the nation. We have also had the Bakassi Boys in most states of the South East which were not regulated by law. Importantly, a state that is too poor to fund the protection of the lives and property of its residents cannot be compelled to own a state police force.”

ADDRESSING THE FEARS OF THE ANTAGONISTS

If and when Nigeria’s government decides to buy into the dream and vision of a decentralised policing system, especially because state police has not only been justified, it has become imperative, Ekweremadu suggested laws and policies provisions that would allay the fears of the antagonists of a decentralised policing system.

Some of these laws and policy provisions, he noted, include but are not limited to amending Section 214 and 215 of the constitution that empowers the federal to exclusively control the police force, removing police from item 45 of part 1 of the second schedule to allow states to establish state police service under approved guidelines, giving the national assembly power to provide the framework for the establishment, structure and powers of the state police.

He submitted further that the powers of state governors should be limited to making policing policies and should not extend to the operational use and control of the police — just like the National Judicial Council, and that the Federal Police Service should exercise a level of oversight over the activities of state police among others.

Ekweremadu declared that: “The choices before us are clear. One is to continue doing things the old way and continue to get the old result. The other is to embrace a change by facing the realities on ground and by borrowing a leaf from other vast and pluralistic federal states that have nevertheless been able to secure their territories. While the choice is ours, let us never forget that the choice we make today will shape our future.”

I agree with him. Thankfully, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s position on state police is unambiguous.

Conclusively, I make bold to submit that, the world over, Nigeria is the only country operating a federal system but still operating a unitary policing system. We cannot be different. We must embrace the change. I commend the speaker of the house of representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, for convening yesterday’s dialogue on security. But it must not stop there. Efforts must be made to give effects to the outcomes of the dialogue.

Omipidan, a journalist and public affairs analyst, writes from Ile Olorisa, Eyindi, Ila Orangun.