The Nation Newspaper

Tag: STATE POLICE

  • Killings: Senate begins push for state police

    The Senate has mandated its committee on constitution review to urgently initiate moves for further review of the constitution to accommodate the establishment of state police.

    The senators were reacting to the killings in Plteau villlages.

    Senator Adamu Aliero, (APC Kebbi Central) set the stage for the need to establish state police in the course of narrating how one of his aides was burnt to death when he ran into attackers on a Plateau highway.

    Many of the lawmakers agreed with Aliero, as they vehemently rebuffed the objection raised by Senator Kabiru Marafa (APC Zamfara Central) on the matter.

    The debate followed a motion moved by Senator David Jonah Jang ( PDP Plateau South) who condemned the wanton killings of some people in his constituency.

    Jang lamented what h described as the helplessness of the security agencies, particularly the police in responding to the attacks.

    Jang, in the motion, said 155 people were killed in the attack, which he said, were carried out by herdsmen, adding that 98 of the victims were from Mangu local government.

    The ex Plateau State Governor lamented that the attacks went on for several hours without any of the security agencies coming to the rescue of the victims.

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, lent his weight to the call, saying “I have been saying it here anytime issues of senseless killings in the land come up; that creation of state police is the way out since the centralised police have proved to be incapable of addressing the problem .

    “By tomorrow (today) or next, a bill for constitutional provision for state and community policing shall be sponsored by me in this chamber”.

    Some other senators that backed the call for state police included  Olamilekan Adeola ( APC Lagos West), Godswill Akpabio ( PDP Akwa Ibom ), Barnabas Gemade ( APC Benue North East) among others.

    President of the SenateBukola Saraki said: “These are acts of criminality and we should not encourage any other colouration to it. Be it religious. This is criminality and as such we have a role to ensure that we must address this criminality

    “We believe there is need for urgent review of the security architecture. We must not only see from the point of view that there is danger to security.

    “There is also danger if we really believe that we are going to push our economy, it is going to become stagnant”

  • Plateau killings: Senate mulls state police

    The Senate on Tuesday mandated its committee on constitution review to urgently initiate moves for the establishment of state police.

    The senators were piqued by the latest spate of senseless killings in Plateau State and the seeming hopelessness of the security agencies in tackling the violence across many states in the North Central.

    Senator Adamu Aliero, (APC, Kebbi Central) had during a debate, set the stage for the need to establish state police.

    He narrated how one of his aides was burnt to death when he ran into attackers on a Plateau highway.

    Many of the lawmakers agreed with Aliero, as they vehemently rebuffed objection raised by Senator Kabiru Marafa (APC, Zamfara Central) on the matter.

    The debate followed a motion moved by Senator David Jonah Jang (PDP, Plateau South), who condemned the wanton killings of some of his constituents penultimate Sunday.

    Jang lamented what he described as the helplessness of the security agencies, particularly the police in responding to the attacks.

    The former governor, in the motion, said 155 people were killed in the attack carried out by Fulani herdsmen.

    According to him, 98 of the victims were from Mangu local government area of the state.

    He lamented that the attacks went on for several hours without any of the security agencies coming to the rescue of the victims.

    Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, said as long as Nigeria failed to get it right in terms of policing, the senseless killings would continue.

     

  • Dickson restates support for state police

    Bayelsa State Governor Henry Seriake Dickson has restated his support for state police.

    He spoke against the background of its opposition by the President, Muhammadu Buhari

    Buhari, in a Voice of America interview in the United States, opposed state police.

    His position, however, is at variance with many protagonists of the idea.

    Dickson, ex-police officer, told the publisher of Africa Today, Kayode Soyinka, that state policing was long overdue in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state as Nigeria.

    Dickson spoke in an interview with the London-based Africa Today to mark his sixth year in office.

    He said: “State police is a necessary element of a federal system… Nigeria is overdue for state policing”.

    The governor argued that state policing has its advantages.

    “I am a former policeman. I know how my colleagues feel, because we are all in this federally-controlled police force. Yes, it has its advantages, but the downside has become apparent and frightening, especially with the population and intricacies of our societies, our country has to adopt state policing”.

    One of Buhari’s reasons for opposing state police is the financial implication of a state police on states.

    He said: “But don’t forget that many times the Federal Government gave out what we referred to as “bail out” to states for payment of  salaries.

    ‘’How many states can pay promptly? And you want to add more financial burden to states”.

    The President, however, uhari cautioned.

    “We must carefully look at the position of the nation’s constitutione a decision. If the constitution allows state police, so be it”.

    Dickson told Soyinka in the April/May edition of his magazine, that he had always spoken in support of state policing “because I am a committed federalist.

    ‘’That does not mean they should wind up the federal police. No, we will still have room for federal police. But states should have the authority to handle policing.

    ‘’But when we have federal offences, of course the state police can cooperate with federal police.

    ‘’So, the two can exist side-by-side. All we need do is for the leadership to be committed, meet and sit down to work out details of the checks-and-balances”.

    Dickson admitted that   those who do not want state police are apprehensive.

    He argued: “These fears can be assuaged. We just need to be more ingenious and craft a mechanism for co-existence… so that every state can take responsibility for its security and stability with the support of federal police.”

    The clamour for state police has been rising, especially with growing insecurity in states occasioned by incessant attacks of farmers by herdsmen.

    This, the President hopes to curtail by approving 6,000 additional officers, to address security challenges.

    While celebrating his six years in office, Dickson inaugurated many projects.

    The list includes hospitals, roads, schools, farms and heli-port.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo was the special guest of honour at the anniversary.

  • Buhari backs away from state police

    AFTER many years of pussyfooting on the question of state police, the All Progressives Congress (APC) appears finally to have made up its mind. There will be no state police, says President Muhammadu Buhari in an interview with the Voice of America (VOA) during his trip to the United States. The president was never enamoured of state police, it must be admitted. As a matter of fact, he had always been generally and generously opposed to any constitutional amendment of such weight and substance as to qualify for the progressive label of rapid, if not radical, transformation.

    Remarkably, for the significant issue of state police, the president anchored his conviction on the single but simple element of states’ financial solvency. Asked by his interviewer, Aliyu Mustapha, what his position on state police was, the president responded: “I want the Nigerian Constitution to be consulted first and see what it says. If it says they should be allowed, then they should be allowed. But don’t forget, how many times did we have to release money to states in the name of bailouts to enable them pay salaries? How many states are able to pay their workers in time? And you add the police to them? People should look at this matter very well.”

    Apparently not satisfied with the president’s rhetorical statement and how he seemed so sparse in his answer, the interviewer pressed him further to know why he seemed unconvinced about state police. The president responded: “No, I am not convinced. We should have solved the current insecurity in the North-east and South-South by now. Can the states be able to shoulder the burden of the police? You cannot just give someone guns and ammunition, train him and refuse to pay him, you know what will eventually happen.”

    It is not only the interviewer who was mystified by the president’s response. Everyone would be surprised that for a question that demanded his best philosophical response, complete with a discourse on federalism and examples from other polities, and a reasoned argument from him about why Nigeria should toe the line of the majority or be different, the president simply dismissed the grave constitutional conundrum with a terse and uninspiring reply. Worse, he seemed even unsure what the constitution says on the matter. No, he didn’t seem unsure; he actually did not know what the constitution says.

    More and more, it is evident that there will be no serious effort to rework Nigeria. If the president cannot appreciate the significance of the insecurity problem overwhelming Nigeria, where soldiers are deployed in about 32 states to carry out police duties; if he cannot understand the tragic implications of deploying more and more soldiers around the country with all the support infrastructure, including brigades and operational bases, then clearly Nigeria will keep on mindlessly adopting the same jaded measures and expecting different outcomes. It is clear that, as his position on many grave national issues indicate, the president has made up his mind on state police without giving the matter any serious thought whatsoever.

    With the president making up his mind so facilely, supported largely by confused commentators averse to fundamental structural and constitutional changes, the idea of state police may be dead for now. But it cannot be avoided in the long run, of course, and things are going to get far worse before Nigerian leaders recognise that they had been tilting at windmills. The president’s response also shows the hypocrisy of the APC and the disconnection between him and his party. In January, the APC ad hoc committee on true federalism indicated that a majority of respondents agreed with the quest for state police. It is not clear whether the president consulted with the recommendations made by the committee set up by the party he leads.

    Importantly too, in February, perhaps flowing from the work of the party’s ad hoc committee, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo cautiously threw his weight behind state police. That same February, the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), pursuant to a national security summit they held in Abuja, all but accepted the inevitability of state police, but hedged it with the caveat that only states able to fund it should go for it. The governors did not make the argument about the possible misuse of the police, even though it is a genuine reason to dilly-dally.

    Overall, the president is wrong to hinge his distaste for state police on the issue of funding. Not only is the federal government grossly underfunding the police, it is not also able to innovative in structuring and running it. If the states had not weighed in to provide financial succour for the police, the law enforcement agency would have since collapsed.

    It is also frustrating that the president simply cannot make a connection between the increasing deployment of soldiers in states for police duties and the fact that the present structure, control, funding and operations of the police indicate both gross inadequacy in federal management of the organisation and the need to develop a new police and law enforcement paradigm in its entirety. But perhaps the president and his aides are still capable of presenting far more plausible and coherent arguments to sustain their needless and counterproductive opposition to state police. The public would like to hear those arguments.

  • State police, challenges and security reality

    With less than two years to the diamond anniversary independence, Nigeria is still grappling with some challenges which put some question marks on the integrity of her independence. As a nation, the country is in search of some realities borne not out of a strong desire for nation-building, but rather out of the will to play to the gallery, especially when it comes to some burning national issues. Nigeria has, for long, deliberately got so many things wrong from independence. One of such crucial things is the floundering nature of unitary police bequeathed to the country which has hindered the nation’s federalism.

    Prior to April 1931, there were two police forces in pre-independence Nigeria (Hausa Constabulary and Lagos Police). This was what the country practiced till a period in the first republic when the idea of native police was mooted. This was also short-lived due to interferences of the political class. In recent times, the clamour for the creation of state police has not only come to the burner, but it has also enjoyed the attention of the presidency and the Senate, among other stakeholders.

    Beyond this clamour, and as promoted by the political class, the need for the desirability or otherwise of the state police should be guided basically on some fundamental principles guiding modern policing as promoted by Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing. Among other principles, Peel’s assertion on modern police, enthuses the need to bring policing practice to the doorsteps of the citizens. This policing mission overrides any other missions as may be advanced in the security of lives and property. Arguably, the mission of Peel is to ensure security for all, in a seamless manner; the presence of which the police would facilitate societal affairs without necessarily through the use of force. I align myself with this position because in civilized climes, this is practically obtained through neighbourhood policing which the creation of state police would engender.

    For a long time, the national police as presently practiced in Nigeria fractured in many ways primary security and also render same ineffective given visibility limitations and culture of incompetence, among other things. The federal police, as presently constituted, is also limited in many ways and not in tandem with the present security challenges and realities of the country. One of the failures of the federal police in Nigeria is its inability to contend with the gale of terrorism, insurgency and kidnapping in the country. This has resulted in the infiltration of other security agencies into what ordinarily should be the primary responsibility of the police. And if for any reason other agencies would be invited, they should merely complement the effort of the police who are primarily in charge of the protection of lives and properties in the country. The military for example has, in the last eight years, been routinely involved in police functions in some states of the federation. In countries where security architecture is properly articulated and segmented, especially in police agency, such security anomaly would not be experienced.

    For a long time, Nigeria ought to have embraced the civility which goes with the creation of state police in countries that practice federalism. It is of a misnomer of great magnitude and primary security compromise for the country to have jettisoned territorial or subnational policing from independence till date. The major consequence of this dastardly act is, among other things, undermining the quality of living due to lack of security coordination which the practice of state policing would have brought about. The country’s recent experiences on security compromises as occasioned by herders’ mayhems in some parts of the country and the most recent embarrassing abduction of 110 Dapchi schoolgirls coming about four years after a similar occurrence in Chibok tell a lot on the need to interrogate the primary security architecture which is the duty of the federal police.

    As a matter of emphasis, the present primary security as provided by the current police structure is woeful and unrealistic, given the international standard of one police officer to 400 citizens. The contention here is that the present police structure and population are greatly ineffective. The test for police inefficiency as presently obtained is the continuous perpetration of crimes and disorderliness in many parts of the country. The establishment of state police would not only stem the increasing tide of insecurity; it would also bring policing to the neighbourhood. Examples of countries with state police abound in the United States of America, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Belgium, France, Algeria, and South Africa. The expediency of the establishment of state police is also hinged on the fact that our country is grossly under policed, given about 190 million people in a country of less than 400,000 police personnel. This number translates to ratio one policeman to about 494 Nigerians. And when we approximate this to the nearest hundred, it is ratio 1:500. In the real sense of it, it is even more than this figure, given the fact that one-third of the Nigerian police personnel are providing security, and or carrying the briefcases or bags of top Nigerians, including their legitimate spouses or concubines. This grossly falls short of the United Nations recommendation of ratio one police to 400 citizens.

    In every country that practices state policing, the philosophy of community policing comes in handy. And the truth is that community/neighbourhood policing is seamless with state policing and not with unitary policing as practiced in Nigeria. Whatever is said to be community policing in Nigeria is merely theoretical and another way of foisting policing philosophy on the nation when the police architecture doesn’t support it. Police personnel, where the philosophy of state policing is entrenched, are not the sole guardians of laws and orders. Members of the public naturally and freely support policing work and make same easy for the police personnel.

    As found in different submissions, some stakeholders have always argued that the country cannot practice sub-national policing. Their arguments have always been premised on lack of funds, given the poor handling of workers’ welfare in many states and its hijack by the politicians for deliberate selfish political oppression and perpetuation. While these positions are valid and of course, seriously in order, they cannot invalidate the appropriateness, propriety and efficacy of establishing state police given the reality of the present insecurity in the country. Many countries (especially those in Asia) practicing sub-national policing system have faced similar challenges which are normal and developmental; and overcome same or better put, still coping with same. What should rather be of interest and concern to stakeholders and those saddled with the polity is the primary security which the establishment of state police would bring about. More fundamentally, state policing would promote community policing as earlier indicated. Where community policing is practiced, it becomes a sine qua non of state policing, given the unhealthy gap between the police and the policed. It goes without saying therefore, that arguments against the establishment of state police would not naturally hold, given the security realities on ground in Nigeria. More importantly, if the current restructuring debate in the country would affirm the true spirit of federalism, the creation of state police should also suffice. Whether the country is ripe for it or not should not be the question. Rather, our concerns should, among others, be: how do we make it operational at the state level; and perhaps, at other levels like local governments and institutions in the spirit of multi-level policing? Of a truth, there will be emerging structural and operational challenges which are themselves expected and normal. These, rather than weaken the entire policing system, should rather strengthen it. No development is absolute without fundamental challenges.

    The country should begin to address critical policy issues that would culminate in the establishment of state police. This would start at the National Assembly in form of constitutional amendment that would also receive the blessing of the two-third of the state assemblies. While this is going on, state governments should also begin to address some fundamentals and principles of state police practice that would be truly ‘indigenous’ and peculiar to each state. At the federal level, the current police structure would also be devolving by addressing what goes to the state and what remains at the Kam Salem House in Abuja. In sum, there is a lot on the policy table if Nigeria wants to have state police and practice same as obtains elsewhere.

     

    • Professor Aremu writes from University of Ibadan.

  • State police: Between the devil and deep blue sea

    With nationwide debates on vital issues affecting our country, it seems Nigeria has arrived at a stage where most of the people can now decide the fate of our country. National discourse on vital issues is not new to Nigerians, but recent events show that our country, for good or for ill, now wants to indicate the direction which we should go.

    One of the latest issues on our plate is the need to fully operate a federal system of government which will devolve responsibilities among the components of the federation. It is now generally believed that the centre is loaded with too many responsibilities some of which it cannot carry and which should be shared among the components of the union. The current attractive subject is the need to create state police to enable the country achieve a higher level of security and surveillance.

    The arguments for state police are very strong. One is that much of the personnel constituting state police must be indigenous to the environment. The personnel are expected mostly to be indigenes of the state who know and appreciate the needs, complexities and ethnic configuration of the state. It is also believed that Abuja is too far away as police command headquarters to be able to effectively move its personnel around especially in times of emergency. Proponents of state police also refer to other countries especially in Europe and the Americas where police force is structured into three – national, state and municipal. Nowhere, people say is a central police system in operation. Finally supporters of state police refer to the distinct if not mutually exclusive ethnic configuration of the Nigerian nation as to make a central police system inoperative, oppressive, inconvenient and inefficient. All the above postulates are right.

    But let us look back a bit and recall what happened in our remote past when there were more or less three tiers of policing in Nigeria especially in the northern and western regions of our country. The east was saved from the destructive and confusing effect of national, state and municipal police system. In the west, there were problems of politicians at regional and municipal levels confronting each other, interpreting differently the roles to be played by these security outfits and generally engendering disorder and confusion which they were set up to avoid in the first place. Some of us can remember concepts like ‘Akintola Police’, ‘Balewa Police’, ‘Shagari Police’ etc. These were derogative terms meant to downplay the usefulness and impartiality of these security bodies.

    Now let us examine the present Nigeria and its tempestuous, self-serving and sometimes irrational politicians who are at the head of various political and governmental institutions. To put it straight, Nigerians are not having the best political operators today. Much of our governmental activities at federal and state levels are geared towards self-aggrandizement, glorification and self-propelled esteem. Many things happening in recent times illustrate vividly the negative effect to which politicians in power can deploy a security outfit. Some few examples. Security operatives accompanying big men especially ministers and governors in an attempt to clear the road for their paymasters usually cause havoc by creating confusion on the road or outright demobilizing or killing hapless citizens who did not do their bidding as quickly as they wanted; some innocents citizens have lost their lives when police men think they are serving their masters by pushing vehicles and humans off the road.

    Overzealous security men watching the offices or homes of big men occasionally assault innocent people whose only offence is that they move near the big man’s house. More recently a section of this country has been battling with a state governor who ordered his men including security police to pull down buildings and structures belonging to political opponents. One can imagine what would happen in a restructured security outfit where the governor has his own police force over which he assumes supreme command. He could order political opponents to be slaughtered at will, quoting relevant portions of state law.

    The above black situation notwithstanding, Nigeria as it is now is too large, too ethnic-conscious, too unwieldy and perhaps too different one from the other in culture, orientation and civic approach to life to accommodate a single policing system. It is therefore a problem of choosing between the devil and the blue sea. Both can result into death. But doesn’t the man who prefers plunging into the blue sea to instant death by the devil have a chance, however slim of accidental safety? This may sound pedantic but it can also be real. Some have said that decentralizing police outfit may aid disintegration of the federation. It is doubtful whether any state or regional police may be strong enough to support or ignite each unit of the federation going its own way. Several states, municipalities and organizations have established their own local security outfit variously called vigilante, neighbourhood guards etc. These bodies are meant to serve as State or Local Police, but without enforcement power.

    With the pros and cons and contradictions steering us in the face, many think that policing Nigeria will not remain what it is for too long. Parliaments all over the world are usually hesitant to make fundamental changes that will reorder societies. This is particularly so on issues concerning security. Nigerian politicians know their onions. Many of them know how they got to the National Assembly and they would be hesitant to make fundamental changes in the constitution that might affect their hold to power especially at local level. Many of our men and women at the National Assembly know that they are not there by merit but by one subterfuge or the other. Some rely on godfathers at national level hence they can confront local demi-gods. These are not the people who would put the interest of the nation above personal survival. But it appears time is running out in Nigeria. The nation may have to decide sooner than later whether to operate a true federal system of government or to continue our present “patch-patch work”.

     

    • Asiwaju Fasuan MON; JP writes from Ado-Ekiti.
  • Before the bill on state police

    Before the bill on state police

    The call for state police has been resonating in Nigeria for years, due to the realization that the Nigeria Police, as presently constituted cannot handle the increased demands of law enforcement, in the criminal justice system. The entire criminal justice delivery system needs to be restructured. However, many argue that Nigeria is not ripe for state police, because state governors will use the police to haunt their political opponents. Whichever way, the consensus is that the policing system for over 180 million Nigerians is inadequate.

    Some security analysts have it that the legislative amendments, structures, funding and reorientation needed, to start a state police are not in place. Yet others are of the opinion that the government in power is scared to allow state police, because, as with all other past governments, they will not have total control of the police and therefore will be losing a major force of its power of coercion.

    However, the present government or any government in power, simply need to have the political will to start the process and many of the variables will fall in place. As for the big question whether Nigeria is ready for state police, my answer will be YES, because establishing state police, or actually restructuring the criminal justice delivery system is a process; and there is no better time to start that process than now.

    A state police that is close to the society of its jurisdiction which will make it more effective is what is desired at this time. However, those in authority have this knack to abuse the police. Now that the National Assembly is considering the bill to establish state police, Nigerians expect a thorough job. It should not be a cut and nail job where the state commands as they are constituted at present, are directed to be the new state police.

    The political foot-dragging is anchored on a false premise; the premise of using the police as a coercive power against opponents – be they political or civil. This false premise must be corrected. This is the time to take a holistic view of the policing and criminal justice system. Indeed, a time to review the security architecture of the country.

    Following the American system, we need to re-organize our policing system to be independent and more effective. We should start from the intelligence services. The Act that established the State Security Services and National Intelligence Agency should be amended to make them independent and answerable to the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through the National Assembly. They should not be controlled by the president, as is practiced at present. The Defence Intelligence Agency should report to the Minister of Defence.

    All other federal police bodies like the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Customs and Immigration Services, National Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and others should report to the Minister of Justice (not the Attorney General). This calls for the separation of the offices of the Attorney General and that of the Minister of Justice.

    We can borrow from the United States of America, where we also copied our constitution. The criminal justice system in that country is well defined in terms of powers, responsibilities and funding. Laws are defined in terms of federal, state, county (like our local government areas) and other specialist police departments.

    At the federal level they have the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which has nationwide jurisdiction for enforce of federal laws. They are limited by US Code to investigating only matters that are explicitly within the power of the federal government. There are other federal law enforcement agencies, which include the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the United States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

    After the terror attack of 9/11 in New York, the government created the Department of Homeland Security, as a counter-terrorism agency, with many other law enforcement agencies reporting to it. In the case of a crime or disaster, many agencies can respond, but when the situation is clear, the agencies are flexible enough to allow the responsible agency to take command. According to the US Constitution, the federal government is not authorized to execute general police powers. The agencies have their jurisdiction and specific duties to carry out.

    State police on the other hand started as an agency to enforce state laws which were mainly traffic laws. They were later given investigative powers. They were referred to as State Police or Highway Patrol Police and report to the State Department of Public Safety. Their duties are very clear and these include; arrest and detention of suspects, crime scene protection, search and seizure, emergency assistance to the public, interrogation and interviews and the presentation of testimony in court. It can be seen from these duties that the state police is restricted to police duties only. So, in Nigeria, I will suggest that they report to the state commissioner in the Ministry of Public Safety. This will remove them from political manipulation.

    Other responsibilities of the state police will include maintaining law and order across the state jurisdiction. These will include patrolling roadways, enforcing state laws, maintaining peace and assisting local government law enforcement when necessary.  For instance, if someone commits murder in one state, the state police will investigate and prosecute the suspect. But if he flees into a neighbouring state, it becomes an interstate crime, where the FBI will be invited to take charge.

    Establishing state police must in effect give way to the concurrent establishment of County or Local Government Area Police (Sheriffs), who will be responsible for carrying out Local Government Ordinances. That will be the limit of their jurisdiction. They will engage in the enforcement of traffic laws and control, parking and environmental laws. They maintain the county jail for drunk, traffic violators and domestic violence suspects awaiting to be charged to court. In large municipalities they have City police like the New York City Police (NYPD) or Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

    Policing in the United States has been so segmented that a unitary system, as practiced in Nigeria will be totally dysfunctional. Right now, all university campuses have campus police. Airports have their police, so does the railroad service. Nigeria used to have the Railway Police. In most American cities, high-brow housing estates have their fully equipped police units patrolling he estate. All these are full-fledged police units carrying out their duties within their jurisdiction.

    The National Assembly will be making a very big mistake if they just go ahead and establish state police without taking a holistic view of the security architecture and spelling out each agency’s responsibilities. They should make the intelligence agencies independent, to checkmate abuses from the executive arm of government. There should be a professional police service that can interpret criminal laws and enforce them; not minding whose ox is gored.

    For state police to operate effectively, the issue of funding has to be addressed adequately. One of the major problems of the police today is the issue of funding. To be effective, the policemen need to be well-funded, to take care of regular salaries, welfare and insurance benefits. If the primary responsibility of government is the protection of lives and property of the citizenry, then funding the security and law enforcement agencies should be a top priority for the government.

    We have to come to terms with the reality that Nigeria needs to restructure its criminal justice delivery system, with fully defines roles and responsibilities at the federal, state, and local government levels. The government should also not forget the large number of private security guards that abound in the country. They could be the extra eyes and ears that will support the policing system in the country.

     

    • Amachree, MON is a security consultant.

  • Finally, state police

    •State chief executives make what may be a first restructuring move

    Governors across geopolitical and party lines have accepted establishment of state police. Speaking at the end of a National Security Summit organised by the Senate, chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) and Zamfara State governor, Abdulaziz Yari, announced on behalf of his colleagues, the forum’s acceptance of the recommendation of the APC Committee on True Federalism that there is need for establishment of state police in the country.

    The decision is remarkable, particularly that it is based on consensus among a group that was hitherto divided into friends and foes of subnational policing in the federation. According to Governor of Zamfara State, Abdul’aziz Yari, the consensus must have been influenced by the spate of threats to security across the federation: “The first primary responsibility of government anywhere in the world is to ensure that the lives and property of citizens are protected; and there has been so many challenges in Nigeria for the past 10 years ranging from Boko Haram, cattle rustling, armed banditry, militancy in the Niger Delta dwindling the economy and even threatening the unity of the nation.”

    It is reassuring that the governors are upbeat on this matter:”We in governance agree that we can find a way through which we can fine-tune the issue of state police . . .It is not all the states that are supposed to have the state police, those that could, should be able to have it. It is something we cannot take off at the same time. We were created differently.”  While it makes sense for the NGF to worry about a new line of recurrent expenditure on law enforcement, it is crucial for governors to realise that buying into the concept of state police involves more than the worries acknowledged by the NGF chairman: which states are sufficiently endowed to start ahead of others; how well-endowed states should pass their own share of federal police to less endowed states, etc.

    Just as the NGF had observed, the organisation needs to consult extensively with the National Assembly on a subject that has been dear to the hearts of citizens, including governors who had to establish a special security group Hisbah to complement efforts of the federal police to maintain order. This is an opportune time for the governors to think ahead and strategically too. NGF should work out a thorough diagnosis of the existing police system, work out a clear vision on how security can be assured and strengthened in a federal system; generate action plans that can realise such vision; and reflect on what type of relationship should exist between federal and subnational police systems, particularly how to avoid infection of the state police by impediments faced by the federal police force.

    High on the list of governors’ priorities should be how to create a state police that can repel any abuse from both the executive and legislature. The philosophy, structure, and culture of the new police system should avoid the problems that have prevented the current federal police from providing effective and efficient protection of life and property. For example, professionalisation of the police through rigorous training, deployment of technology to assist crime prevention and detection; and limiting state police to crime prevention, detention, and maintenance of public order, rather than overburdening or distracting it with prosecution of criminals requires holistic thinking.

    Governors ought not to leave citizens out of the groups to be consulted on this important matter. Both police and citizens need to be taught the culture of mutual respect and support as sine qua non of law enforcement. Admittedly, there will be challenges, but what is reassuring is that Nigeria has the benefit of learning from models that work in other federal democracies: the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and United Arab Emirates.

    Certainly, this is not the time for governors to entertain doubts, as is evident in the statement of the NGF chairman:”That is why we are saying that it is not all the states that are supposed to have state police.” More appropriately, this is the time for comprehensive consultation with other arms and layers of government and citizens on new calibration of policing—federal and subnational. For example, governors need to generate ideas about the proper role for federal police: should it continue in its omnibus status or just serve as a federal bureau of investigation, thus leaving day-to-day law enforcement and maintenance of order in the hands of state police, and thus free up funds for states to police communities efficiently and effectively?

     

  • The case for state police

    The case for state police

    To Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, state police is the way to go. Many people, including governors, agree with him. Others do not. They fear that state police can be subject to abuse. But is the centralised policing system any better? ADEBISI ONANUGA asks.

    Amid the security challenges facing the country, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo has called for the establishment of state police. Analysts believe that his proposition may have been informed by recent killings by herdsmen in many states, particularly in the North.

    His proposition is coming when the police are under severe criticism, with some questioning their ability to effectively play their role.

    Osinbajo, who spoke on Thursday at a National Assembly Security Summit in Abuja, is of the view that state policing would go a long way to tighten security across the country.

    The two-day summit, which was held at the NAF Conference Centre, Ahmadu Bello Way, Abuja, was aimed at providing an all-inclusive platform for finding long-term solutions to the security challenges in Nigeria.

    According to the Vice President, the state policing system is the way to go because having a centralised system, as currently practised, cannot effectively secure the nation.

    “We cannot realistically police a country the size of Nigeria centrally from Abuja. State police and other community policing methods are clearly the way to go,” he said.

     

    Governors Forum backs call

    The proposition of the Vice President is already gaining the support of most governors, especially those whose states are experiencing various forms of insecurity.

    Chairman, Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF), Abdulaziz Yari of Zamfara State, agreed with proponents of state police on Monday that it would go a long way in addressing the insecurity in the country. Speaking at  the end of a two-day summit organised by Senate Ad hoc Committee on ‘Current Security infrastructure in Nigeria’, Yari said the governors reiterated their position taken in August that state police is what the country needs.

    Last year, the NGF set up a six-man committee to look into various options for policing the country and the prospect of state police.  The committee was set up following increased deployment of soldiers for security duties which ordinarily and constitutionally should have been done by the police. Observers said the committee voted for state police which would be close to communities and for the fact that the police, as presently constituted only take orders from Abuja.

    Yari said the police have failed in their primary obligation of managing the internal security of the states. “We in governance agree that we can find a way through which we can fine tune the issue of state police”, he said.

     

    History of state police agitations

    Agitation for state police dates back to 2011, particularly during constitutional amendments, with many politicians drumming support for community policing as being done in developed countries like Britain and United States of America (USA).

    Some analysts argued that the primary responsibility of any government is to protect lives and properties of its citizens. They noted many challenges facing the country to include recent herdsmen attack ravaging the people of Benue, Taraba, Plateau states and other parts of the north and in southern and eastern parts of the country.

    Other challenges which they noted would need policing include cattle rustling, Boko Haram, robbery, armed banditry and activities of the militants in the Niger Delta region of the country among others issues threatening co-existence and unity of the country. They believed the protection and security of lives and property will be better achieved with a police that is close to the community.

     

    Dangers of state policing

    On the other hand, there are those who feel that politicians cannot be trusted to effectively deploy state police within their locality. This group fears a situation where those in authority might use them against their political opponents. Some others feel solution to various challenges facing the country does not lie in state police but in effective deployment and use of the force.

    Analysts however, found common ground in the fact that the country is under-policed and that establishment of state police may fill the gap.

    However, there are fears that Nigeria is not truly ripe for such community policing given the huge funding it would require and that it might turn to political tool to intimidate the opposition.

    The issue of state police has raised a lot of issues which must be addressed. Given the complexity of the country, the different socio-ethnic problems, how best can state police serve the need of the people and funding of such a force in the face of dwindling economy, how best can it be done and established to meet the need of the public and how best can our community be guided to ensure safety of lives and property?

     

    How state police can be

    implemented, by lawyers

    Several lawyers have suggested lawful and effective ways that state policing can be implemented.

    They include Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mr Monday Ubani, social critic and lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Akoka, Lagos, Mr Wahab Shittu, a member of the Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission, Mr Abayomi Omoyinmi, and Lagos lawyer Olukayode Enitan.

     

    ‘Move policing from exclusive

     to concurrent list’

    Ubani lamented that the country is under serious siege and security threats. According to him, “lives are lost daily and blood are shed as if it is going out of fashion and the security apparatus in the country seems helpless in the face of state of anomie starring at us.

    “What is worrisome in the whole state of insecurity is the apparent inability of both governments at state and at the federal level to proffer practical solution to safety of lives and property which is the primary responsibility of any serious government”.

    He said one useful suggestion that had been made is to restructure our security’s architecture by decentralisation to permit state police.

    “The reality today is that the earlier we accept state police, enact a law to regulate its operations, implement it and where there are noticeable defects, correct and normalise them, the better for us as a nation.”

    He was delighted that the Vice President and governors had agreed “that State Police is part of the restructuring Nigeria must embarked upon if we desire a country that must live up to her expectation of protecting lives and properties of her citizens.

    “Is State Police possible? Yes it is possible. Is it the panacea to all our security challenges? Not necessarily, but it will go a long way in providing a practical solution to several of our security challenges in the country”, he stated.

    Ubani suggested that the first practical step is to amend the constitution to remove policing from the Exclusive List and make it Concurrent.  It should be by way of choice, that is, states that desire it and have the capacity to fund state police should be allowed to have one whereas those that desire federal police to man their state should also be allowed.

     

    ‘Federal and state police

    should coexist’

    Ubani also insisted that the federal police should be made to work hand in hand with the state police to negate and reduce abuse, impunity and excesses of the state police.

    Ubani said: “What that means is that states that do not show financial capacity to fund state police should not be allowed to have one as allowing such will be very dangerous. We are aware of states like Lagos and Anambra that are funding the federal police and the evidence of security are obvious in those states and one is sure that those two states represent example of states that should be allowed to have state police.”

    On the nagging issue of abuse by the state governors, he admitted that the threat is real “but one that must be handled with care by enacting laws and safeguards that will ensure that the citizens will be alert, coupled with an agile judiciary that will not permit of any glaring abuse of the state police by the chief executives of the various states.”

    He however emphasised that “the fear of abuse should not deter us from having state police, it should rather enable us to be more careful in enacting the laws providing for all the safeguards that will negate the inherent abuse that may likely occur if it is allowed. That is the right approach rather than dissuading us from experimenting it.

    “In summary, the best solution to tackle insecurity in Nigeria is to decentralise the architecture of our security arrangement and ensure effective policing that is modern, alert, well equipped, people friendly, well-funded, welfare-driven and free from corruption. The time to start is now, we have lost  so much time  already”, he maintained.

    Omoyinmi shared Ubani’s sentiments on the necessity for and coexistence of federal and state police.

    He said: ‘’However, each state should enact laws for the creation of state police and design their policing structure through laws enacted to suit their respective states.”

    According to him, the state police will function along with the federal police, but should only enforce state laws like what obtains in the United States.

    “Each individual state should fund the police in accordance with its financial capabilities, in view of the fact that some of the states have taken it upon themselves to inject funds into the present federal police arrangements by donating cars, motorcycles, helicopters, armoured vehicles from state budgets.

    “However for states that may not be able to fund police in their respective states, such state could either rely on the federal police and or have a regional police among other states within their region”, he said.

    Omoyinmi, however, would not dismiss the fears being expressed in some quarters that some of the states might turn the police to political tools to intimidate  opposition. He said such action,  if it occurs,  can be challenged by any individual affected in the law court, if such intimidation is for anything other than for pursuit of justice, obviously there will be sanctions.

    He remarked that the arguments in support of having state police in the present day Nigeria and the reasons for same out weight the thinking that the state police might become tools for politician to intimidate opposition.

    He said if those recruited are members of the community/local government they belong or reside in, safety of lives and properties will most ultimately be guarded because they are part of the communities working for the protection of the community environment.

     

    Creative constitutional amendment needed

    To Shittu, the views of Vice President Osinbajo on the desirability of state police to curb the rising wave of insecurity in the land can hardly be faulted. Coming from a significant part of the highest echelon of the ruling elite, he said Osinbajo’s view represents a bold and creative restatement of popular consciousness yet unrivalled in the annals of our history.

    According to him, the reason for the necessity is simple.

    He said: “All crimes are local and can best be policed locally by elements familiar with the terrain, the geography, values and the local populace with clear mandate/ authority to take decisions without waiting for directives at the centre

    “The present arrangement whereby chief executives of states, designated as chief security officers of states, do not have authority to take decisions because state police commissioners are answerable to the Inspector-General of Police at the centre is unhealthy. It is also unhealthy to post elements from the South to police theatres in the North and vice versa when such elements are not familiar with the territory and terrain particularly the language is unrealistic and unreasonable if not impracticable”.

    Shittu maintained, “Clearly state police is the way to go. How do we go about it? The answer is through creative constitutional amendment process because it cannot be achieved without tinkering with the laws of the land. The Parliament has to come on board.

    “In spite of my agreement with state police, taking that option alone without factoring into the equation other elements of true federalism such as true fiscal federalism, devolution of powers to the generating units etc is tokenism amounting to scratching the surface of the problem in a federalist structure. The truth is that our federalism is in the reverse gear with powers over concentrated at the centre leading to our present problems and tensions in the land.

    “How may state police be funded? My view is that cutting down costs of governance and wastages in the system could save sufficient funds and resources to fund state police and elements of true federalism. The problem is not lack of resources but lack of sufficient political will to overhaul the country for the benefit of the people. lf there is the will there will always be a way”, he said.

     

    State policing necessary for federal structure

    To Enitan, Nigeria is supposed to be a federation unfortunately it is being run as a ‘Monolith’ unitary country  rather than as a proper federation. The Federal Government only pays lip service to the concept of true federalism. This, however, is a fault that can be traced to the Constitution itself.

    He said: “In all federations world over, you find delineation of the police powers into federal, state and local government as the case may be.

    “Prominent cases in point are the United States of America where the FBI is in charge of federal crimes, state police in charge of some others whilst the Sheriffs are in charge of offences occurring within local governments or towns”.

    Enitan disagreed that state governments can use state police against political opponents describing it as a lame excuse to justify a failure to do the proper thing.

    “Today each Governor can still deploy the police against real or perceived enemies if they want. They all have special units tied to the governors’ office; RSS in Lagos State, QRS in some other states. These special squads are headed by officers loyal to the governors so use for political witch hunt is a lame excuse.”

    On funding, he said it is already available for most of the states as they are presently funding these special squads from their current resources which they can deploy to their state police when established.

    “Take Lagos as an example we have RRS, Lastma, Neighborhood Watch etc, they are all being funded so funding shouldn’t be an excuse. For the states that can’t fund it from their resources the Federal Government can help them out until they are ready. So to that extent, it should be made optional and not mandatory”, he noted.

    He contended that Nigeria was ripe for state police and that it should just be optional.

    Furthermore on funding, if along with the implementation of state police we truly implement fiscal federalism, each state can then take from what it generates to fund it’s version of the policing effort.

    “The template of what to do and how to go about doing it can be sourced from other federal democracies and adapted to Nigeria”, he said

     

  • NCP kicks against state police

    The National Conscience Party (NCP) on Saturday said it was opposed to the creation of State Police in the country.

    The Lagos State Chairman of the party, Mr. Fatai Ibu-Owo, made the party’s position known in Lagos.

    He was reacting to the clamour for the creation of state police in the face of rising security challenges in the country.

    Ibu-Owo said the NCP opposed the idea because it would not solve the security problem in the country but worsen it.

    He argued that the country had not attained the political maturity to adopt state police, as the idea would be subjected to political manipulation.

    Ibu-Owo said in a country where people still identified with tribes rather than the country, the idea was not good for national unity.

    “We at NCP are opposed to the idea because the country is not ripe for such, especially in a country where politicians can be desperate.

    “We believe that if states are allowed to have their own police, politicians would manipulate them to fight or crush the opposition, rather than fight security challenges.

    “Just like governors are using the state electoral commissions to achieve their political whims and caprices in their respective states.

    “Also, state police is not good for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country like Nigeria.

    “They could be used to dangerously settle ethnic scores, and this is not good for the unity of the country,” he said.

    NAN