“Rethinking Nigeria’s state security is important because the nature of security threats is fundamentally local, with each region encountering its own distinct challenges that require local responses.”
Whenever the proposal to establish state security outfits is presented to the National Assembly, it ignites intense discussions and vigorous debates among lawmakers. The debates often reveal a clear division within the assembly, with some members passionately advocating for the initiative, emphasizing the necessity for localized responses to security challenges. Others staunchly oppose it, voicing concerns about the potential misuse of power by the state governors. This contentious discourse reflects broader concerns about local security, which have intensified in recent years. Many states are currently confronting a complex array of pressing security challenges. These include the ongoing threats posed by insurgent groups and violent banditry, which disrupt social order and instill fear in communities. In addition to these violence-driven concerns, many regions are also dealing with deeply rooted ethnic conflicts that have historically divided populations. These tensions often escalate into various forms of communal violence, further complicating the security landscape and undermining efforts for peace and stability. Given these complex and ongoing security issues, it is essential to critically reassess the narrative surrounding the establishment of state security organizations.
For an extended period, Nigeria has relied on a centralized security structure that has increasingly proven to be both overstretched and significantly ineffective. This model, originally designed to address a more straightforward set of security challenges, is now struggling to adapt to the complex and evolving threats that vary widely across different regions of the country. In the Middle Belt region, the ongoing violence in Benue, Plateau, and Taraba States has highlighted the inadequacy of the centralized security system. Just days after the tragic Yelwata massacre, the cycle of violence remains unbroken. In a shocking turn of events, four dedicated policemen were ambushed and brutally murdered just a short distance from where the Yelwata bloodshed unfolded. This is far more than an isolated act of violence; it represents a disturbing escalation in a war against the fundamental dignity of human life, a direct challenge to the authority of the state, and a significant threat to the peace and safety that our communities desperately need. The centralized security agencies, established to protect and serve the community, have not only failed to fulfill their responsibilities but have also proven ineffective in preventing violent attacks on innocent citizens. In the northwest, states like Kaduna have been beset by a rising wave of abductions as criminal gangs utilize increasingly sophisticated tactics to take advantage of local communities’ vulnerabilities. Families find themselves living in a persistent state of fear as these gangs operate with impunity, kidnapping individuals for ransom and fostering a pervasive atmosphere of anxiety and insecurity. This troubling situation has compelled many communities to adjust their daily routines, significantly hindering economic activities in the region.
Other states like Zamfara are grappling with a severe crisis of rampant banditry, wherein organized criminal groups perpetrate violent acts and theft, often targeting rural communities. The scale and frequency of these attacks have instilled panic among citizens, undermining their sense of safety and destabilizing entire neighborhoods. Local economies are severely impacted as farmers become increasingly hesitant to venture into the fields, fearing violence and potential losses. In Rivers State, the situation is exacerbated by armed robbery, cultism, kidnapping, oil theft, and piracy, creating a chaotic environment where innocent civilians frequently become entangled in the crossfire of these turf wars. This violence not only jeopardizes lives but also weakens the social fabric of communities, fostering an atmosphere characterized by distrust and fear. This situation brings forth an essential question that requires immediate consideration: What motivates the call for a shift from a federal security framework to a more localized state security organization?
Nigeria is officially a federal state, yet it often functions as though it is not. While this federal framework is designed to facilitate local governance, its practical application reveals significant shortcomings, particularly in policing and security management. Despite the security concerns at the local level, policing remains predominantly centralized. This centralization means that state governors, who are constitutionally elected to oversee the safety and security within their jurisdictions, find themselves stripped of absolute authority over critical security apparatuses. As a result of this disconnect between constitutional provisions and practical authority, there’s a notable dysfunction in Nigeria’s security architecture. The centralization of policing leads to inefficiencies in responding to local security challenges, making it difficult for governors to manage law enforcement and ensure public safety effectively. This situation not only undermines the effectiveness of security operations but also puts citizens at significant risk, exacerbating crime, unrest, and social instability. The pressing question raised by this ongoing contradiction is: How long can Nigeria sustain this dissonance between federal intentions and local realities before it leads to a total breakdown of public order and trust in the governance system? Why does rethinking Nigeria’s state security agencies matter?
Rethinking Nigeria’s state security is important because the nature of security threats is fundamentally local, with each region encountering its own distinct challenges that require local responses. For example, Nigeria’s security challenges are predominantly local, but the response is largely centralized. Conflicts such as herder-farmer conflicts in Benue, banditry in Zamfara, kidnappings in Kaduna, and gang violence in Rivers differ from one state to another. However, governors—the so-called “chief security officers” of their states—do not possess constitutional authority over the police and military forces within their jurisdictions. Rethinking state security involves empowering those most familiar with the problems to respond swiftly and effectively. Insecurity demands immediate and decisive action rather than being subjected to bureaucratic delays. Under the current setup, the existing framework often compels local crises to wait for federal intervention, sometimes extending the response time to days or even weeks. This delay can have serious repercussions. When local security forces are required to await directives or resources from Abuja, the consequences for affected populations can be catastrophic, leading to a breakdown of social order and a decline in trust in both local and federal governance.
State-level or regional security organizations are often more attuned to the unique intricacies of their local environments. They possess a deeper understanding of the geographical terrain, which is crucial for effective planning and response strategies. Additionally, their familiarity with local languages and dialects facilitates better communication, fostering trust and cooperation with the communities they serve. The success of community-oriented initiatives, such as Amotekun in the Southwest, serves as a compelling example of how localized security efforts can be effective. Amotekun has demonstrated that when communities are actively engaged in their own security arrangements, there can be a noticeable enhancement in safety and security. This approach not only addresses immediate concerns but also strengthens community ties and cooperation with state authorities, ultimately fostering a more resilient and responsive security framework. Security personnel recruited from local communities often enjoy a higher level of trust among residents, as they are more familiar with the area’s values, norms, and concerns. Their intimate knowledge of the community allows them to build stronger relationships with residents, fostering an environment of accountability where individuals feel comfortable reporting issues and seeking assistance. As a result, these local security personnel can effectively respond to situations in a way that is respectful and understanding of the community’s unique dynamics. Therefore, in a nation as vast, diverse, and complex as Nigeria, security measures should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. A centralized authority cannot effectively govern a country of over 220 million people dispersed across thousands of towns and villages, each facing unique challenges. Rethinking state security is not merely a matter of efficiency—it’s essential for national survival.
What steps must we take to establish a local security organization? To establish a robust and capable local security organization, we must take several comprehensive steps that ensure not only the organization’s effectiveness but also its sustainability and community support. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the measures required: First and foremost, to effectively establish local policing, it is crucial to adopt a comprehensive strategy that begins with advocating for legislative action. This involves efforts to draft, support, and promote laws that aim to strengthen community policing initiatives. Key steps in this process include conducting in-depth research to identify gaps in current local law enforcement practices, collaborating with community members to understand their safety concerns, and forming coalitions with stakeholders such as local government officials, law enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups. Second, to enhance local security strategies, it is crucial to implement pilot programs specifically aimed at strengthening and evaluating the capabilities of current regional security forces, such as Amotekun, Ebube Agu, and Hisbah. These initiatives should prioritize a thorough assessment of existing resources, training protocols, and community engagement practices utilized by these security units. By emphasizing these aspects, the pilot programs would not only bolster the effectiveness of regional security forces but also ensure their operations align with community expectations and standards, thereby contributing to a more secure and stable environment in the region. Third, to effectively establish local security organizations, it is crucial to develop and implement robust public education initiatives that promote awareness and understanding of the importance of local security. One key step is to launch comprehensive awareness campaigns that emphasize the importance of state policing as an integral part of the broader strategy for community safety and resilience. These campaigns could include educational workshops, informational webinars, and community forums that foster dialogue between the police and the public. This would not only help in demystifying the functions of state policing but also encourage active participation from community members in safety initiatives.
While numerous advocates support the decentralization of the country’s security structure, there are substantive counterarguments that address essential concerns regarding governance, capacity, and national unity. Critics express fears that state police forces could be used as instruments of intimidation, harassment, or suppression against political opposition within the state. State governors might leverage local police to silence dissent, manipulate elections, or pursue personal agendas—particularly in regions with fragile democratic institutions or insufficient checks and balances. Some critics contend that many local governments may lack the essential resources, training, and infrastructure needed to establish a competent and effective police force. This decentralization may lead to disparities in the quality of law enforcement across different regions, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Additionally, the introduction of state police alongside federal police could create overlapping jurisdictions, command conflicts, and coordination challenges, especially during national emergencies or cases of interstate crime. Critics argue that what Nigeria truly needs is reform and enhancement of the existing police system rather than the creation of another potentially competing structure.
Some experts have expressed concerns that giving authority to state police forces may unintentionally turn individual states into quasi-autonomous entities, similar to mini-republics with their own systems of coercive power. This centralization of power at the state level might pose a significant threat to national unity and stability, as it risks weakening the centralized government’s role in maintaining law and order across the country. The potential divergence in law enforcement practices and priorities could lead to fragmented legal systems and various interpretations of justice, ultimately fostering an environment ripe for lawlessness, conflict, and regional disunity. Additionally, other experts warn that the distribution of arms to state law enforcement agencies might unintentionally bolster the power of local warlords, cults, or paramilitary groups, particularly in areas already marked by fragility, instability, or a history of violence. This scenario could create a dangerous cycle where weaker state governance allows these armed factions to gain influence, further complicating the enforcement of law and order. The risks involved in arming state police forces could escalate tensions within communities and provoke confrontations, leading to a destabilization of both local and national security landscapes.
Concerns are increasingly mounting regarding the efficacy of state policing in addressing the escalating security crisis in Nigeria. Many experts and critics argue that delegating policing powers to local authorities may not only fail to resolve ongoing issues but could aggravate them further. They highlight the persistence of systemic problems such as widespread corruption, inadequate training standards among law enforcement personnel, and pervasive political interference that have long plagued the national police. These issues are likely to replicate themselves at the state and local levels, raising concerns about the effectiveness and integrity of newly established policing bodies. Moreover, there are significant worries that the implementation of state policing might inadvertently foster increased tribalism and regional biases within law enforcement practices. Such a development could deepen existing divisions among various ethnic and regional groups, potentially fracturing the country’s unity and undermining its sense of shared national identity. As a consequence, the discourse surrounding the transition to state policing has sparked intense debates, drawing impassioned responses from various stakeholders.
While these concerns are valid, we must be careful not to hastily conclude that local security organizations will necessarily be corrupt and act outside the law. Such broad assumptions overlook the importance of governance within local contexts. Therefore, as we consider the establishment of local security organizations, it is crucial to consider the broader context in which they operate. Typically, these entities are established to address specific community needs, enhance public safety, and foster trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. However, their effectiveness largely hinges on the frameworks established at the outset. This includes implementing clear guidelines, oversight bodies, and transparency measures to monitor their activities and ensure accountability for any misconduct. To establish a comprehensive legal and constitutional framework, it is essential to clearly define the roles and jurisdictions of both local and federal law enforcement agencies. This framework should incorporate the creation of independent oversight bodies responsible for monitoring the actions of security forces to prevent abuses of power, ensure accountability, and uphold the rule of law. Additionally, integrating human rights protections is crucial to safeguard individual rights and freedoms, ensuring that law enforcement practices are consistent with democratic principles and international human rights standards. Equally significant is the need to foster national integration among the various law enforcement agencies. This can be achieved by implementing uniform training standards that all security personnel must follow across different jurisdictions.
As the debate over state policing continues, many Nigerians are calling for either the disbandment or significant reform of federal law enforcement agencies. Such calls are not made lightly; they stem from deep frustration, disillusionment, and a history marked by inefficiency and systemic failures. This push for change reflects a belief that the current security framework has failed to fulfill its crucial role of protecting the populace. While the rationale for disbanding federal law enforcement agencies is certainly compelling, simply dissolving these entities would not address the underlying issues. Instead, a more constructive approach would be to focus on the development and establishment of local security organizations tailored to meet the unique needs and circumstances of individual communities. These localized initiatives could foster closer ties between law enforcement and the communities they serve, promoting accountability, responsiveness, and trust. By empowering communities to take an active role in their security, we can develop a more effective and equitable system that genuinely prioritizes the safety and well-being of all citizens. This approach will also establish a governance framework that better reflects our collective hopes and aspirations for a safer and more prosperous community.
Nigeria is facing a crisis, not only from bandits and kidnappers but also from a deeply flawed system that has shown itself incapable of evolving and adapting to the country’s urgent needs. The current approach towards state security agencies portrays them as adversaries to national unity rather than the essential support systems that can ensure the nation’s safety and survival. To pave the way for lasting peace in Nigeria, we must fundamentally rethink our strategies and policies. It is crucial to empower local communities by placing the responsibility for protection directly into the hands of those individuals who are most affected by insecurity. By doing so, we can foster a sense of ownership and vigilance among citizens, which is vital for cultivating trust and enhancing cooperation with security forces. This shift requires a commitment to reforming security agencies so that they operate as partners with the populace rather than as enforcers distant from the communities they are meant to protect. Only then can we hope to build a secure and resilient nation capable of overcoming the profound challenges we face.
Rev. Ma, S. J., is a Jesuit Catholic priest of the North West Africa Province of the Society of Jesus. He currently writes from Abuja, Nigeria.
