Nigeria has reached a point where everybody can see something is off with the usual idea of policing. The national police structure was created for a country with a much smaller population and far simpler security challenges. Today the landscape looks different. Violence from banditry, kidnapping, communal clashes, targeted killings and attacks on rural communities keeps shifting from region to region. The police officers that are supposed to respond are stretched thin across thirty six states. The command chain still sits at Abuja even when the danger is happening inside a village road that has not seen tar since the military era.
The public argument for state controlled policing has been around for more than two decades, but the pressure got louder in 2025. Attacks in Benue communities, the abduction of a monarch in Kogi, killings in Kwara and renewed clashes across remote farming belts forced state leaders to raise their voices. Many governors made it clear that local security cannot depend on a single national command in a year where response time meant life or death.
Why everybody dey shout now
The real trigger is not just the rising cases but the slow and sometimes confusing response structure. When violence breaks out in states like Benue or Plateau, community leaders usually contact local police divisions. Those divisions then escalate to state commands. The state commands then escalate to the Abuja headquarters because the final authority for deployment sits at the top. This long ladder delays action and criminals exploit that delay. A violent incident may happen at nine in the evening but the officers with serious authority may not take a decision until the next morning.
In 2025 these gaps were exposed again. The Yelewata attack in Guma showed the old weakness in full display. A large community was hit yet help did not arrive quickly enough to prevent heavy casualties. In Kogi a monarch was abducted inside his own community and held for close to a month before being freed. In Kwara forest guards were attacked by gunmen in an area already known for strange movements. In each case the story was the same. Someone called for help, the help came too late. That pattern made the call for state policing appear not just political but practical.
Time to ask the real question
The argument is simple, a governor already controls local infrastructure, controls state budgets and controls the security advisory council of the state. Yet the governor has little direct command over the police officers working within that same territory. It becomes strange that states handle everything from schools to roads but policing remains removed from their direct control. In a country where terrain, culture, language and population density differ sharply, a single policing template cannot work. The idea of Abuja controlling village security in Taraba or a riverbank community in Bayelsa does not match the realities on ground.
The other side of the debate worries that governors may abuse local police for political purposes. This fear is not totally baseless, but the counter argument asks a hard question. If states already control vigilante groups, forest guards, traffic agencies and joint task forces, what exactly stops them from abuse if that is their intention. The truth is that a well designed state police framework may actually provide more accountability than the scattered informal structures that currently exist across the country.
Why the central structure drags everything
The Nigeria Police Force was created to be a national institution with oversight and uniform standards. That idea works for federal crimes and national threats but becomes complicated for minor or fast moving local incidents. A kidnapping inside a rural farm road is not a national crime until it becomes headline news. Until then the federal structure treats it like a routine case. The local people however see it as a life changing incident that demands urgency. That mismatch keeps repeating itself and leads to frustration.
Another issue is manpower. The police to population ratio remains far below international recommendations. Even with regular recruitment drives the numbers cannot match Nigeria wide demand. The force spreads its officers thin across urban centers leaving many rural settlements exposed. When the central command tries to move officers from one state to another it also weakens the original location. Everything ends up looking like a blanket that is too small for the bed.
State policing isn’t magic spray but it fills the gap
The idea of state policing does not promise a perfect security environment. What it offers is a structure built for speed, familiarity and presence. Officers who understand the local language and terrain respond faster because they know where trouble usually starts. A state police service can design patrol routes that fit community patterns. They can also integrate local intelligence without long meetings or unnecessary bureaucracy.
State policing can also reshape the crime prevention system. Instead of waiting for federal allocations or approval, states can directly budget for training, equipment and infrastructure. A state that struggles with forest banditry can invest in off road bikes and drone surveillance. Another state facing urban robbery can focus on street patrols and rapid response teams. Each state can tailor its security approach without waiting for national templates that may take too long to reach them.
The worries people still talk about
The strongest worry is political misuse. Critics fear that governors may turn local police into tools against opponents. While this fear has weight, it is not enough reason to reject the entire idea. A proper design can include strict federal oversight, independent complaints boards, transparent recruitment and fixed tenure for commanders to reduce political pressure. Another fear is funding. Some states struggle with salary payment already, so critics wonder how they will sustain a police service. The simple answer is that states already spend money on parallel informal security outfits. Redirecting and formalizing these expenses may give more value for the same cost.
Another worry comes from people who simply fear change. The current system is familiar. Even if it is slow and weak, some still believe modifying it may create confusion. But the truth is that Nigeria is already living inside confusion. When an entire region suffers repeated attacks despite having federal commands, staying inside the old structure makes less sense.
Reality check from the streets
People at the community level do not speak in policy language. They talk about who shows up when they shout for help. They talk about how long the police take to arrive. They talk about the fear of sleeping at night in farming communities where gunmen move freely. For these people the debate about state policing is not about theory. It is about survival.
In many rural towns, local hunters, vigilantes and youth groups already serve as first responders. These groups are brave but lack proper training and equipment. They work mostly out of commitment to their communities. State policing would bring these scattered groups into a formal and trained system where they can operate with legal backing and oversight. Instead of working with dane guns or outdated equipment, they would receive structured support.
Why 2025 changed the conversation again
The pattern of attacks in 2025 across different regions exposed how quickly violence adapts. Bandits and criminal groups moved from state to state looking for weak spots. They avoided areas with stronger community vigilance and capitalized on slower police presence in others. The long standing argument that Nigeria faces a uniform security challenge collapsed under the reality of region specific threats.
Benue faced repeated rural attacks. Kogi dealt with the abduction of a monarch. Kwara struggled with forest belt ambushes. Each situation had its own pattern and required its own solution. A single national structure trying to solve these problems with one manual feels outdated. State policing fits into this growing understanding that Nigeria needs local solutions for local problems.
How the future would like if the idea lands well
If Nigeria finally adopts state controlled policing, the transition will not be automatic. It will require a gradual phase where federal and state forces operate side by side. The federal structure will still handle national crimes, cross state investigations and major intelligence gathering. State forces will handle community threats, early response, local disputes and crime prevention.
Over time the presence of state police will likely reduce pressure on the federal command. Local crimes will no longer choke the national workload. Federal resources can then shift to specialized threats like terrorism, trafficking networks and organized crime cells. The system becomes a layered structure rather than a single overloaded block.
So where should the blame go
Blame should not focus only on the police command. The officers themselves operate under old laws, limited funding and overstretched command chains. The real challenge is the structure. A country with more than two hundred million people cannot rely on one central point for rapid security response. While the national force tries its best, it simply cannot be everywhere at once.
By creating a state owned security layer, Nigeria accepts the truth that no single institution can carry such weight alone. That acceptance is not weakness. It is maturity.
The street level conclusion
Nigeria has reached a stage where doing nothing is more dangerous than making a risky but necessary move. The insecurity that defined 2025 showed that federal policing alone cannot manage the whole picture. Communities need officers who live within their space. States need authority to respond without waiting for distant approval. The country needs a system where responsibility and power sit in the same place.
State policing is not a magic answer. It is simply the answer that matches the problem Nigeria faces today. If the design is honest and the oversight is strict, it can reduce the distance between citizens and the people sworn to protect them. Insecurity has become too close to home for comfort. That means security must also come closer.
Discussion about this post