The proposed constitutional amendment to establish state police in Nigeria has suffered a setback, with only five of the country’s 36 State Houses of Assembly having approved the bill as of Thursday, October 15, 2026, despite a 30-day deadline given to state legislatures to communicate their positions.
The development leaves Bayelsa and 29 other states yet to approve the proposed amendment, raising fresh concerns about the pace of the constitutional alteration process and the prospects of decentralising Nigeria’s policing system amid persistent security challenges across the country.
The five states that have reportedly approved the proposal are Edo, Osun, Oyo, Rivers and Zamfara. Their respective legislative approvals represent an initial step towards a major reform of Nigeria’s security architecture, which has remained a subject of national debate among political leaders, security experts, state governments and civil society organisations.
However, with only five states reportedly backing the proposal, the amendment remains far short of the constitutional requirement of at least 24 State Houses of Assembly before the proposed changes can proceed to the stage of presidential assent.
The National Assembly transmitted the proposed constitutional amendment to the state legislatures on September 16, 2026, following its passage by the Senate on June 24 and the House of Representatives on July 23.
The 30-day period given to the state legislatures to communicate their decisions was due to expire on Friday, October 16, leaving little time for the remaining assemblies to complete their consideration of the proposal.
As of Thursday, several state
legislatures were still examining the bill, consulting relevant stakeholders or awaiting the commencement of deliberations. The situation has heightened uncertainty over whether the required number of state assemblies will approve the amendment within the stipulated period.
The leadership of the House of Representatives had yet to issue a formal statement on the status of the exercise or clarify the next steps following the limited number of reported approvals.
BAYELSA AMONG STATES YET TO APPROVE BILL
Bayelsa State is among the 30 states that had not approved the proposed amendment as of the reporting date.
The position of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly is particularly significant given the state’s security concerns, which include communal disputes, criminal activities, illegal bunkering, oil-related offences and other challenges associated with its riverine geography and difficult terrain.
Advocates of state policing argue that a decentralised security system could enable subnational governments to respond more quickly to threats within their territories, particularly in communities where difficult terrain and limited access can complicate conventional policing operations.
However, the absence of reported approval from Bayelsa and 29 other states raises questions about the level of legislative consensus on the proposal and the extent to which state lawmakers are prepared to support a fundamental restructuring of the country’s policing arrangements.
The position of each state legislature will be crucial in determining whether the proposed amendment can secure the necessary constitutional backing.
Nevertheless, the fact that a state has yet to approve the bill does not necessarily mean its lawmakers have rejected it. Some assemblies may still be considering the proposal, consulting stakeholders or awaiting the necessary legislative procedures.
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT POSES MAJOR HURDLE
Under Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an alteration to the Constitution requires approval by the resolutions of at least two-thirds of all State Houses of Assembly before it can be presented to the President for assent.
With 36 states in the federation, the constitutional threshold is 24 state assemblies.
The reported five approvals therefore leave the proposal 19 state approvals short of the required number.
The requirement is intended to ensure that constitutional amendments receive broad support across the federation rather than being determined solely by the National Assembly.
Consequently, even if both chambers of the National Assembly have passed the proposed amendment, the process cannot be completed without the constitutionally required number of state legislative approvals.
The limited number of approvals recorded so far presents a significant challenge for proponents of state police, particularly if the remaining assemblies are unable to conclude their deliberations within the period communicated to them.
However, the implications of the October 16 deadline for assemblies that have not communicated their positions would depend on the applicable constitutional procedure and any subsequent clarification by the National Assembly.
STATE POLICE AND NIGERIA’S SECURITY CHALLENGES
The proposal to establish state police has gained prominence in national discussions over how best to address Nigeria’s worsening security concerns.
The country continues to face multiple
security threats, including banditry, kidnapping, terrorism, communal violence, armed robbery and other criminal activities.
In several parts of the country, communities have complained about delayed security responses, inadequate personnel and the difficulties of coordinating operations across large geographical areas.
Supporters of state policing contend that a decentralised arrangement would bring law enforcement closer to the people and allow state governments to develop security responses tailored to their specific circumstances.
They argue that state police officers would be better positioned to understand local languages, terrain, community relationships and emerging threats, potentially improving intelligence gathering and crime prevention.
Under such an arrangement, state governments could establish policing services through enabling legislation, subject to the constitutional framework governing their operations.
The proposed amendment also envisages a Federal Police Service operating alongside state police services, with provisions addressing the establishment, administration, oversight and accountability of the proposed state-level institutions.
Advocates maintain that the reform would allow the federal police to concentrate on national responsibilities while state police services address security concerns within their respective jurisdictions.
They further argue that a decentralised system could improve coordination between communities and law enforcement agencies, provided adequate safeguards are established.
CONCERNS OVER POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
Despite the arguments in favour of state policing, the proposal has continued to attract concerns over its possible misuse by state governments and politically influential individuals.
Critics fear that governors could use state-controlled police formations to intimidate political opponents, suppress peaceful protests, influence elections or target critics.
Such concerns are particularly significant in a political environment where disputes between governing parties and opposition groups frequently generate tension.
Questions have also been raised about funding, recruitment standards, professional training, operational independence and the mechanisms required to investigate allegations of misconduct by state police officers.
There are concerns, too, about how state police services would operate in cases involving crimes that cross state boundaries and how disputes between federal and state authorities would be resolved.
For the proposed system to command public confidence, analysts and advocates of police reform have emphasised the importance of clear constitutional safeguards, independent oversight, transparent recruitment and effective accountability mechanisms.
These safeguards would be essential to ensuring that state police services operate as professional law enforcement institutions rather than instruments of political control.
The debate, therefore, extends beyond whether Nigeria should establish state police to the more fundamental question of how such institutions would be structured, funded, supervised and held accountable.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE REQUIRED NUMBER IS NOT REACHED?
The reported shortfall in approvals places the constitutional amendment process at a critical stage.
The National Assembly must establish the position of the state legislatures and determine the appropriate procedural steps in accordance with the Constitution.
If the proposal fails to secure approval from at least 24 state assemblies, it cannot proceed to presidential assent under the constitutional amendment procedure.
However, the failure to meet the communicated 30-day deadline should not automatically be interpreted as a definitive rejection of the proposal by the remaining states without clarification of the applicable procedure.
The National Assembly’s response will therefore be important in determining the status of the amendment, including whether further legislative action, clarification or additional time is permissible under the relevant rules.
The position of the state assemblies may also provide an indication of the political support available for one of the most significant proposed changes to Nigeria’s security structure in recent years.
THE ROAD AHEAD
With only five states reportedly having approved the amendment as of October 15, the proponents of state police face the challenge of securing the support of at least 19 additional state legislatures.
The outcome will depend on the decisions of the remaining assemblies, the willingness of lawmakers to prioritise the proposal and the extent to which outstanding concerns about the proposed policing structure can be addressed.
For Bayelsa and other states yet to approve the bill, the coming days are likely to be important in clarifying their positions on the proposed reform.
Ultimately, the debate over state police reflects the wider search for a security system capable of responding effectively to Nigeria’s diverse and evolving
threats while preserving professional standards, constitutional safeguards and respect for citizens’ rights.
Whether the current amendment succeeds or encounters further delays, the issue is likely to remain central to discussions about federalism, security governance and the responsibilities of federal and state authorities in protecting lives and property.
About Author
