Resuscitating State Police in Nigeria.

Another firm, vigorously postulated position of IBB on his seventy-first birthday was his position on the restoration of State police in Nigeria. He argues that the fact that the state police in the North and the local constabulary in the south were roundly abused in the past and during the first Republic does not render […]

Another firm, vigorously postulated position of IBB on his seventy-first birthday was his position on the restoration of State police in Nigeria. He argues that the fact that the state police in the North and the local constabulary in the south were roundly abused in the past and during the first Republic does not render its resuscitation fruitless. You may not agree with his optimism that the nation’s political temper has improved significantly since the sixties when the state police system had to be scrapped due to past abuses, especially by politicians (I certainly don’t see any marked improvement or maturity in the character of the political class in Nigeria. In fact, it has slided down the hill), there is no question about the soundness of the logic of his argument that the present rage of national insecurity necessitates innovative enhancement of the nation’s security apparatus, including the return of state police. When you consider hyperbolic statements such as the one offered by Nuhu Tanko Lafia to the effect that state police, if revived, will ‘lead to our destruction and disintegration as a nation’ or such ludicrous oversimplification of the matter, vide that state police ‘will cause inter-state wars.’!!

The debate over the re-integration or nay of state police has generated a series of credible affirmative and opposing theories. First on the opposing fault-line; the issue of past experience, especially the grievous abuse of the experiment which led to its being scrapped is the strongest point.  During electioneering ruling parties in the regions deployed the regional police to deny opposition parties campaign access, especially during Federal or general elections. Thugs were freely used to frustrate opposition candidates while the local police conveniently looked on or looked away. In the south, where the press was very influential, opposition media were illegally banned so as to muffle opposing views to the hegemonic forces in the region. The argument is that there is nothing in the present partisan political practice to show that such ugly feats of misuse of state police will cease if they are returned. The way in which security forces are massively deployed to forestall election violence and irregularity shows that if the state has control over police, elections cannot be won by candidates whose party is or parties are not in power. Just imagine the ‘political revolution’ that took place in the South West in the last election where the ruling party was shamefully routed by the Action Congress of Nigeria. Given the desperation of the ruling party, it would be unimaginable that opposition parties would gain power if the ruling party had control of the security forces in the states. Take for instance the way in which state Governors sweep clean elections to the Local Governments. How many Local Government chairmen come from any opposing parties in any state? Even in a state as liberal as Lagos and with all the might of the Federal Government’s People Democratic Party, how many Local Governments were conceded to the State? Nothing in the temperament of the Nigerian politician show any liberal tendencies that will make state police practicable if resuscitated. Is this wholly attributable to the popular acceptance of the party in power? I doubt it.

On the other hand, however, and as IBB fervently avers, no nation is static. Nigeria is no exception. It is possible to hope that, given the emergency nature of our national state of insecurity, other alternative security strategies, not excluding the restoration of state police, are in dire want. If regional police are in place to complement federal police in other nations, there is no reason why it should not work in Nigeria, regardless that the ‘state is out of joint,’ to borrow the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Two examples oft-quoted in this respect are the United States of America and the United Kingdom. They are both united, unwittingly, in their success in streamlining the functions of Federal and regional police. The Federal Investigative Bureau, the state and county police function independently and mutually in the United States while Scotland Yard at the centre has separate functions and mandates from the local police force. Nigeria can borrow a leaf from these countries, if it wishes, and there are very strong reasons while it should, to re-introduce state police in its Constitution.

The frightening state of national insecurity makes the re-invention of the security system inexorable. It is not just because of the enormity of the nation’s territorial expanse that this is expedient. Intelligence gathering is a major tool in national security. It is important that the nation makes the intelligence gathering mechanism of the State more manageable and more effective. This is a reliable argument for restoring state police. I do not subscribe to the reductive ethnical argument flaunted to the effect that an Ibo man can better secure the Igbo nation than a Fulani or a Yoruba man. But I agree that community policing, a stem of state police, is better handled by the state, for the purpose of spatial proximity and close-knit knowledge of people in closely- spaced residencies. No doubt, what happened recently in my State, Kogi, could be better handled if my State governor is in charge of the security of the State in all its ramifications—rather than being a toothless Chief Security of the State. In fact, I sent him a text, after learning of his violence-checking step of ordering a curfew, without the  cloak garb effect of a bullet proof donning that my brother, the ace columnist, Olatunji Dare, unmasked, that the curfew he announced could only make sense, and be functional, if the security forces can enforce it. The best way for state Governors to actually be Chief Security Officers in their state is when they are empowered by Constitution, to secure the State, outside of the power enabled by the Federal Government. Recall the rift that ensued between the Federal Government and Governor Dariye during the first state of emergency pronounced by the Federal Government during the earlier internal violence in Plateau State. Recall the state of emergencies and curfews imposed by the Federal government in parts of some states in the north and the attendant futility of effectuation by the State governments on account of their constitutionally sanctioned powerlessness. How can State governors be described as christened chief security officers while the power to act on security matters rests with the Inspector general of Police whose directives inform and instruct the Commissioner of Police in the State?

There is a need to beef the security strength of our country. The resuscitation of State police is an important segment of that response strategy, but the reckless power mongering of State Governors must be curtailed, by a constitutional proviso. So long!