The rise of insecurity and the cry for state police in Nigeria

The rise of insecurity in Nigeria has led to a public outcry for the need for state police as a means to curb insecurity. Some notable voices that have thrown their weight in support of state police are former President Olusegun Obasanjo¹, Bola Ahmed Tinubu², APC 2023 presidential candidate and Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, Ondo state governor,³ among others.

The purpose of this article is to explore the reasons for the creation of state police as well as highlight dissenting views.

What is state police?

State police is a police structure in a federal system where the state government is in charge of the operations of the police in a particular state.⁴ This means that the power of the police is controlled by the state government (governor) who constitutionally (in Nigeria) is the Chief executive officer of the state.⁵ State police is used in other countries like Canada, United States of America and India.⁶

Current structure of the Nigerian Police

There is single federal police in Nigeria known as Nigeria Police Force.⁷ This means the power and responsibilities are not shared between the federal police and state police as no state has its own police force.

It is noteworthy at this point to mention that the structure of Nigerian police has not always been centralised. At a time in history, Nigeria’s constitution accommodated regional police alongside the Nigeria Police Force.⁸ However, the complaint of abuse of local police force by political leaders against their opponents brought an end to it.⁹

Arguments against state police in Nigeria

1. State police structure is not suitable due to diverse ethnic groups within a state as it can harm corporate existence in the face of intra-state disputes within different ethnic groups.¹⁰

2. There is a tendency for political leaders in the state to use state police to intimidate their political opponents.¹¹ This factor was the major reason that brought an end to regional police.¹²

3. Also, the likelihood of conflict between the federal and state police.

Arguments for state police in Nigeria

1. Every state has security challenges that are peculiar to it. Therefore state police who would be familiar with the terrain and the local language will have better intelligence to ascertain the prevalent security issues and manpower needed.¹³

2. Having a state police structure aligns with the principle of federalism in which Nigeria operates¹⁴. Nigerian federalism is reflected in:

• The sharing of power between the federal government and the 36 states.¹⁵
• The existence of the federal courts as well as the state courts.¹⁶
• The power to make law for the federation is vested in the national assembly, while the state house of assembly makes law for the state¹⁷.
• The executive power of the federation is vested in the president while the executive power of the state is vested in the governor.¹⁸

The creation of state police will therefore cure the imbalance and bring about true federalism in Nigeria.

3. Also, Nigeria is too large to have security power centralised in the federal government alone. The federal government is already burdened with a lot of administrative responsibilities which can make a decision taking on security matters slow.¹⁹ This reason is supported by vice president Yemi Osinbajo who said it was unrealistic to effectively police Nigeria from Abuja.²⁰

4. Most states already fund the police due to under-funding from the government. An example is The Lagos State Security Trust Fund set up by the state government to support the police alongside other security agencies.²¹

5. Nigeria is under-policed and does not meet the United Nations benchmark which is one policeman to 400 persons.²²

6. Also, almost every state in Nigeria has a form of informal state police created/allowed by the government to assist law enforcement agencies. An example is The Lagos Neighborhood Safety Corps (LNSC) operational in all local governments in Lagos. The officers are locals from the various local government where they operate.²³

In conclusion, governors who are constitutionally the chief executive officer should have control over the police force in a state as they are likely to be blamed first by the citizens of the state for any insecurity issues.

You might also be interested in ‘Do We Need State Supreme Courts in Nigeria?‘.

1 https://dailytrust.com/state-police-it-is

2 https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/10/its-time-for-state-police-tinubu/

3 https://leadership.ng/akeredolu-malami-differ-on-restructuring-state-police/

4 Agawanwo D. E (2014), ‘State Policing and Police Efficiency in Nigeria’, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 25

5 S 176 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

6 Tangban, O.J and Audu B. M (2020), ‘The Controversy Over the Creation of State Police in Nigeria’, Sarjana, Vol. 35, No. 2

7 S 214 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

8 S 105 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963

9 Eme, O.I and Ogbochie, A.N (2014), ‘Limitations of State Police in Nigeria’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 5 No. 15

10 An example is Ife and Modakeke dispute. See https://www.blueprint.ng/hybrid-insurgency-in-nigeria-why-state-police-is-not-the-solution-2/

11 Tamuno ,T. N (1970), ‘The Police in Modern Nigeria’. Ibadan: University Press, pp. 28.

12 Ibid (9)

13 Ibid (9)

14 Ibid (4)

15 S 2 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

16 S 6 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

17 S 4 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

18 S 5 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

19 Ibid (4)

20 https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/282491-osinbajo-disagrees-with-buhari-on-state-police.html

21 https://lagosstatesecuritytrustfund.com/

22 Nigeria has a population of about 180 million. At the moment, the staff strength of the Nigeria Police is about 371,800 implying a deficit of 78,200 police personnel. See ibid (9)

23 https://lsstf.lagosstate.gov.ng/lagos-neighborhood-safety-corpslnsc/

Can a president be impeached in Nigeria?

Using constitutional law and precedents, this article provides a detailed answer to the question, ‘Can a president be impeached in Nigeria?’ and explains the procedure for impeachment of a president in Nigeria.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment is when elected government officials such as the President, Vice-President, Governors, and Deputy Governors are lawfully removed from office before the end of the tenure of office if found guilty of gross misconduct.¹

The legislative arm of government in a nation is saddled with the responsibility of impeaching government executives who are found guilty of gross misconduct². This means that in Nigeria, a sitting President can be removed from office by the National Assembly before the end of his tenure if found guilty of misconduct.³

Misconduct is any action that amounts to a grave violation of the provision of the constitution. Also, it includes any action which in the opinion of the National Assembly amounts to gross misconduct.⁴

Impeachment is not a new concept in Nigeria. The practice dates back to 1981, when the Governor of Kaduna state, Balarabe Musa, was removed from office.⁵ Some other members of the executive who have been impeached are Governor Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyesigha of Bayelsa state. He was impeached on 9 December 2005 on charges of corruption.⁶ Also, Governor Ayodele Peter Fayose of Ekiti State who was impeached on 16 October 2006 for financial misconduct.⁷

For a sitting President to be removed or impeached lawfully, it must be constitutionally approved. This means that the process for impeachment must be in line with steps provided in the constitution.⁸

The steps provided in the Nigerian constitution for the removal of a President are listed below:

1. A written notice of any allegation signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly is presented to the Senate President.
2. Within seven days of receiving the notice, the Senate President will serve a copy to the President and each member of the National Assembly.
3. If the President replies to the notice, the reply will also be served on each member of the National Assembly.
4. Within 14 days of the Senate President receiving the notice, each House of the National Assembly will decide whether to investigate the allegation.
5. The decision to investigate the allegation must be supported by not less than a two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly.
6. Within seven days of the decision to investigate, the Senate President involves the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who sets up a panel of seven persons to carry out the investigation. These persons must not be members of any public service, legislative house or political party.

In the process of the investigation, the President can choose to defend himself in person and also be represented by lawyers before the panel. The outcome of the investigation must be reported to each house of the National Assembly within three months of the appointment of the panel.

Where the allegation against the President was not proven, the President will not be impeached, and no further action will be taken. Where the allegation was proved, each house of the National Assembly shall consider adopting the report within fourteen days of receiving it. Adoption of the report must not be less than two-thirds majority of each house. Upon adoption, the President ceases to be the President from the date of adoption.

Ordinarily, the decision of the panel or the National Assembly cannot be challenged in court⁹. However, recent court cases have shown that the impeachment process which led to the removal can be challenged. The governor can then be reinstated if the court rules in his favour.

This was the case of Peter Obi, who was impeached on November 2, 2006, when he was the Governor of Anambra State. He was later reinstated into office as it was declared that the process of his impeachment was unconstitutional.¹⁰

In conclusion, while the removal of a sitting president is possible if the impeachment steps are followed, there are arguments that impeachment has been largely used to serve political gains in Nigeria.¹¹ This argument rest on the fact that the constitution failed to state what actions or inactions amount to gross misconduct. Rather, it gave the legislature a large power to determine what amounts to gross misconduct,¹² a power that can be abused arbitrarily.¹³

1 S 143 & S 188 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

2 Offor M A, Eze C O & Nwaeze O, (2016), ‘’Politics of Impeachment in Nigeria; A Discourse on Causes and Implications for Democratic Consolidation’’, Journal of Policy and Development Studies Vol 10, No 1, February

3 S 143 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

4 S 143 (11) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

5 Bernard Balogun, (2017) ‘’History of Impeachment in Nigeria’’, News Express, February 1

6 Kayoed Keteti (2014), ‘’ Impeachment Problematic Issue in Nigeria’s Jurisprudence’’, National Mirror July 21; Bernard Balogun, (2017) ‘’History of Impeachment in Nigeria’’, News Express, February 1

7 Oni Samuel (2013), ‘’Electoral Fraud in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria’s Democratic Governance’’, Journal of Public and Administrative Research Vol. 3 No. 2

8 S 143 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

9 S 143 (10) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

10 Leke Baiyewu, (2014) ‘’Incessant Impeachment a Blot on Nigeria’s Democracy’’ Punch newspaper July 20.

11 Offor M A, Eze C O & Nwaeze O, (2016), ‘’Politics Of Impeachment In Nigeria; A Discourse On Causes And Implications For Democratic Consolidation’’, Journal Of Policy And Development Studies Vol 10, No 1, February

12 S 143 (11) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended

13 Udofa Imo, ‘’The Impeachment Power of the Legislature Under the Nigerian And American Constitution Compared’’, International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies, Vol 4, No 4