The Senate on Sunday defended the passage of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026, insisting that 84 of the 109 senators voted in support of the bill during its clause-by-clause consideration, describing the outcome as evidence of broad bipartisan backing for the constitutional amendment.
Defending the Senate’s decision in a statement issued by his media office, Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, said the proposal was the product of years of consultations, public hearings and stakeholder engagements across the country.
Bamidele also dismissed claims that the proposal was driven by partisan interests, insisting that it emerged from extensive consultations with the Executive, the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, the Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures and the leadership of the Nigeria Police.
He noted that public hearings conducted across the six geopolitical zones in July 2025 produced overwhelming support for state police.
He said, “The state police bill was subjected to intense debates at the Senate and House of Representatives. Even though the All Progressives Congress is the majority party, opposition legislators actively took part in the process that approved the state police initiative.
“They exercised their discretion in favour of the proposal, mainly in the national interest and not on a parochial basis. In the Senate, for instance, 84 out of 109 members voted clause by clause in support of the Bill. This accounted for 77.06 per cent approval at the Senate alone.”
The clarification comes amid growing debate over the proposed decentralisation of policing, with supporters arguing that state police will improve security at the grassroots, while critics fear governors could misuse the outfit to intimidate political opponents.
However, Bamidele argued that the current security architecture had become overstretched by terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, farmer-herder clashes and other violent crimes across the federation.
According to him, the proposed amendment clearly defines the responsibilities of both federal and state police to prevent jurisdictional conflicts.
He explained that under the proposal, the federal police would retain responsibility for the protection of federal institutions, the Federal Capital Territory, counter-terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime, border security, arms trafficking, interstate criminal activities and other national security matters.
The state police, he said, would enforce state laws, maintain public order, prevent crime within their jurisdictions and protect lives and property.
The Senate Leader said the bill also provides safeguards to prevent abuse of state police by governors.
He explained that while governors may nominate commissioners of police, appointments would be subject to recommendations by the National Police Council and approval by a two-thirds majority of the relevant state House of Assembly.
The lawmaker further stated that the National Police Council would oversee overall policy, funding and appointments, while a State Police Service Commission would operate independently of governors in regulating state police operations.
In his explanation, the federal police would only intervene in state policing under clearly defined conditions, including a breakdown of public order, inability of a state police service to function, serious human rights violations, partisan or electoral intimidation, or threats to national security.
He said, “The intervention can only be granted when there is an outright breakdown of public order; where a state police service is incapable of functioning; where there are serious abuses of fundamental rights; where there is partisan or electoral intimidation; and when national security is heavily strained and threatened.
“To avoid any form of abuse, the bill creates the State Police Service Commission. In design, the Commission will serve as the regulatory authority of the state police system.
“Under this arrangement, the Commission will be authorised “to, without the approval or control of the governor, make rules regulating its own procedure or conferring powers and imposing duties on any officer or authority for the purpose of discharging its functions under the 1999 Constitution.”
