NIGERIA'S STATE POLICE PROPOSAL CLEARS TWO-THIRDS STATE ASSEMBLY THRESHOLD AS CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM ADVANCES

By Simpson Global Media News Desk

Report date: Friday, 23 October 2026

Report preparation time: 17:31 WAT (UTC+1)

Story location: Abuja, Nigeria; constitutional approvals across Nigeria's 36 states

Nigeria’s proposed transition towards a dual policing system has reached a major constitutional milestone after the Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill announced that 24 State Houses of Assembly had approved the constitutional amendment required to establish state police services.

Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu and Chairman of the Presidential Working Group, Femi Gbajabiamila, announced the development on Friday, October 23, 2026. In a statement published by the State House, he said the approvals met the constitutional threshold of two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states. The National Assembly had previously passed the proposed constitutional alteration through both chambers and transmitted it to state legislatures for consideration. [Source: State House, Abuja]

The announcement moves the long-running debate over decentralised policing into another formal stage. Supporters say state police could improve local intelligence gathering, shorten response times and enable security arrangements to reflect conditions in individual states. However, questions remain over funding, operational independence, accountability, human-rights safeguards and the possibility of political interference.

The government is advancing two connected but distinct legal processes. The constitutional amendment would provide the foundation for establishing state police services alongside federal policing. Separately, the proposed National Policing Bill, 2026, and 29 related amendment bills are undergoing legislative-drafting review and validation at the Federal Ministry of Justice. The Presidential Working Group said the reviewed documents were expected to return by October 30 before further consideration and presentation to the President. [Source: State House — National Policing Bill review]

The announcement does not mean that operational state police forces have already been established across Nigeria. Further formal steps, publication of the final legal instruments and development of the implementing framework remain important to determining when and how the proposed arrangement could take effect.

The constitutional threshold has been reached

Section 9(2) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution provides for a special process to amend constitutional provisions. Among its requirements, an alteration must receive the required supermajority support in the National Assembly and approval through resolutions of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly.

For Nigeria’s 36 states, the two-thirds threshold is 24. The Presidential Working Group said the state-policing amendment had reached that number, allowing the constitutional process to advance beyond the state-assembly approval stage. [Sources: State House, Abuja; National Assembly legislative-process guidance]

The threshold is important because constitutional amendments require approval beyond the federal legislature. State assemblies have a defined role in determining whether proposed changes should proceed, reflecting the federal structure of Nigeria’s government.

The current proposal concerns the distribution of policing responsibilities between the federal government and state governments. Under the intended dual arrangement, a federal police service would retain national responsibilities while individual states would have a constitutional basis for establishing their own services within a defined legal framework.

The reform would therefore change more than the administrative organisation of the existing Nigeria Police Force. It would require laws and operating arrangements specifying the powers and responsibilities of the different levels of policing, how they would cooperate and which safeguards would apply.

Although the threshold has been met according to the government announcement, this is not the end of the implementation process. The legal text must be finalised and the remaining constitutional and legislative procedures completed. The proposed operational framework also needs to be clear enough to prevent confusion between federal and state authorities.

A discrepancy in reported state counts

There is a difference between some reports published on Friday over the number of state assemblies that have approved the amendment.

The State House statement issued in the name of the Presidential Working Group reported 24 approvals. The Guardian Nigeria and Naija News also reported that 24 states had endorsed the proposal. However, TheCable published a separate compilation reporting 25 approvals, including Gombe State, which does not appear in several of the 24-state lists published on the same day. [Sources: State House; TheCable; The Guardian Nigeria]

Because the formal government announcement confirms that the required threshold has been reached but does not publish a full state-by-state roll-call in the statement, the discrepancy should be reconciled through official legislative records.

The difference does not change the basic constitutional arithmetic: 24 approvals are sufficient to meet the two-thirds state threshold, provided the approvals have been formally recorded in accordance with the applicable process.

But an accurate roll-call remains important. It should establish which assemblies passed the relevant resolutions, when they did so and whether the resolutions cover the same constitutional provisions.

The distinction between an assembly passing a motion, adopting a formal resolution and transmitting its decision to the National Assembly also matters. These are different steps, and reports should not assume that they are interchangeable without examining the underlying records.

An official consolidated list would give lawmakers, civil society organisations, legal practitioners and the public a common reference point for understanding the process.

How the proposal reached this stage

The current constitutional process developed through a series of legislative and executive actions during 2026.

Both chambers of the National Assembly considered and passed the proposed Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, before the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, transmitted it to the 36 state legislatures on September 16 for their consideration and approval.

The transmission allowed state assemblies to review the proposed changes and communicate their decisions in accordance with the constitutional procedure. The National Assembly had requested that the state legislatures consider the matter within a 30-day period. [Sources: Channels Television; Premium Times]

The proposal gained momentum as state assemblies began issuing approvals. On October 21, the Guardian reported that a group of state assemblies had approved the proposal during a concentrated round of legislative action, bringing the process closer to the required threshold. Additional reports on October 22 documented approvals by the Yobe and Bayelsa assemblies. [Sources: The Guardian Nigeria; PUNCH — Yobe; PUNCH — Bayelsa]

By Friday, October 23, the Presidential Working Group said the necessary 24-state threshold had been achieved. The announcement marked the formal recognition by the group of a key milestone in the constitutional amendment process.

The sequence demonstrates how a proposed national reform can require legislative action at several levels. Passing a bill in the National Assembly was necessary, but the state legislatures also had to consider it before the constitutional threshold could be met.

The next stages will involve confirming the resolutions, completing the relevant legal processes and developing the legislation needed to put the proposed policing structure into operation.

What the proposed dual policing system would change

Under the proposal, Nigeria would move towards a dual structure comprising a Federal Police Service and State Police Services.

The federal service would continue to perform national policing responsibilities, while state police formations would operate under legal arrangements established for individual states. The proposed constitutional alteration seeks to move policing from the exclusive federal legislative framework towards a system that permits both federal and state legislation within specified boundaries. [Source: TheCable]

The objective is not simply to rename existing local security arrangements. A legally established state police service would require a clear basis for recruitment, training, command, financing, operational authority and oversight.

It would also need defined relationships with the federal service, particularly where investigations, suspects or security threats cross state borders. Without clear rules, the existence of two levels of policing could create uncertainty over which organisation has authority to act in a particular situation.

The proposed system is intended to allow states to develop policing capacity that reflects their local circumstances while retaining a national structure for federal responsibilities.

Supporters argue that this could enable more responsive policing because state authorities may be better placed to understand local communities, languages, geographical conditions and security patterns. However, decentralisation alone cannot guarantee that police services will be better resourced, more effective or more accountable.

Those outcomes depend on the legal safeguards, professional standards, funding arrangements and oversight institutions that accompany the reform.

The government's proposed National Policing Bill

Alongside the constitutional alteration, the Presidential Working Group has developed a proposed National Policing Bill, 2026, intended to establish the legislative and administrative framework for a dual policing system.

On October 19, the working group submitted the draft bill, together with 29 consequential amendment bills, to the Federal Ministry of Justice for legislative-drafting review and validation. The ministry was expected to return the documents by Friday, October 30, after which the working group would give them final consideration before presentation to the President. [Source: State House, Abuja]

The review is intended to ensure that the bills conform to drafting standards, fit within the existing legal framework and do not conflict with other laws.

This stage is important because a constitutional amendment may establish the basis for state policing, but detailed legislation is needed to define how the proposed system would operate. That includes determining the powers of different authorities, the structure of police services and procedures for coordination between federal and state organisations.

The 29 related amendment bills indicate that implementation may require changes across several existing legal instruments rather than one standalone law. The public statement does not provide the full text of all the draft provisions or a complete account of every law to be amended.

Those documents will need to be examined as they become available. The final wording will determine the practical powers of the institutions involved and the safeguards governing the new structure.

The deadline of October 30 is the expected return date for the reviewed bills, not proof that the legislation will automatically be enacted or that state police will begin operations on that date.

Why supporters want policing closer to communities

Supporters of state policing argue that a decentralised system could improve local intelligence gathering and enable faster responses to security threats.

Nigeria's security challenges vary by location. Communities may face different combinations of kidnapping, banditry, armed robbery, communal violence, farmer-herder disputes, attacks on rural settlements and other criminal activity.

The information required to understand these threats may be held partly by residents, traditional institutions, local organisations and officials who have close knowledge of an area. Supporters of decentralisation argue that a state-level service could be better positioned to maintain relationships with those communities and respond to local intelligence.

A state police structure might also allow authorities to deploy personnel with knowledge of local languages, geography and social conditions. That familiarity could help with communication, investigation and the identification of emerging risks.

However, these are potential advantages, not guaranteed results. Local proximity can improve information flows only when residents trust the police, complaints receive appropriate attention and intelligence is handled professionally.

If people fear retaliation or believe that police operate in the interests of powerful local groups, they may be reluctant to share information. Effective policing therefore requires trust, impartiality and reliable mechanisms for reporting misconduct.

The proposed system will also need to establish how local knowledge can be used without allowing political or communal pressure to dictate arrests or determine who receives protection.

The law's eventual design and its practical enforcement will determine whether decentralisation delivers the improvements its supporters anticipate.

Concerns about political interference

One of the main questions surrounding state police is how to protect operational independence from political interference.

State governments would have a greater role in establishing and maintaining their own police services under the proposed system. That could provide greater flexibility in responding to local security problems, but it also raises questions about how police conduct would be protected from pressure by governors, party officials or other powerful interests.

Critics of decentralised policing have long warned that a state-controlled force could be misused against political opponents, protesters, journalists or communities involved in local disputes if sufficient safeguards were absent.

These concerns do not establish that state police must be abused. They highlight risks that need to be addressed in the laws governing command, appointments, discipline, deployment and the investigation of complaints.

A credible framework would need transparent recruitment, professional training, enforceable operational standards and clear limits on the powers of political officeholders. It would also need impartial procedures for investigating allegations of abuse.

The role of courts, legislatures and independent oversight bodies will matter. If a person believes that police powers have been used unlawfully, the legal system must provide an effective means of seeking review or redress.

The arrangements should also clarify whether state police commanders can refuse unlawful instructions and how such disputes would be investigated. Operational authority and political accountability must be defined so that neither the governor's office nor individual officers can act beyond the law.

The draft National Policing Bill and related legislation will be important in establishing how these concerns are handled.

Funding will determine operational capacity

State police services would require substantial, recurring resources. Recruitment, training, salaries, vehicles, communications equipment, facilities, digital systems, forensic services and routine maintenance would all create costs.

The fiscal capacity of individual states differs. Some states may be better able to finance a service that can operate across their territory, while others may struggle to meet recurring costs alongside existing public responsibilities.

The design of the system will therefore need to establish how new forces will be funded and how financial accountability will work.

Funding arrangements should be clear about the responsibilities of state governments and any permitted support from other levels of government. They should also account for the cost of training, equipment replacement, pensions, supervision and the independent investigation of complaints.

An underfunded police service may be unable to recruit enough qualified personnel, maintain equipment or respond consistently to calls for assistance. In such circumstances, formal establishment would not automatically translate into effective policing.

At the same time, increased spending alone does not establish better performance. Budget allocations should be connected to operational requirements, procurement rules and measurable service outcomes.

State legislatures will have important oversight responsibilities if the new system is established. Transparent budgets and reporting could help residents understand what their governments are spending on policing and how the resources are being used.

The federal government and state authorities will need to consider these financial questions as the draft framework moves through the legal process.

How the federal police would work with state services

A dual system would require clear rules governing situations in which federal and state police responsibilities overlap.

Criminal activity does not always remain within one state's boundaries. A suspected offender may move between states, investigations may involve victims or evidence located in different jurisdictions, and security threats may require support from multiple agencies.

The proposed framework therefore needs to identify the powers retained by the federal police, the circumstances in which state services may seek assistance and the procedures through which agencies share information.

TheCable's report on the amendment describes provisions intended to preserve federal policing functions while permitting state services to operate within defined jurisdictions. It also reports provisions for federal intervention in specified exceptional circumstances, including a breakdown of law and order beyond a state's capacity or a request for federal assistance. [Source: TheCable]

The final legal text will need to be examined to determine exactly how those arrangements are worded and implemented.

Coordination procedures should also address how agencies exchange intelligence, manage joint operations, transfer suspects and preserve evidence. Differences in command structure should not leave uncertainty about who is responsible during an emergency.

If a state service is unable to respond to a serious incident, there should be an established process for obtaining support. If a federal investigation requires cooperation from state police, the legal framework should clarify the responsibilities of each agency.

The system will need to reduce duplication while making sure that no serious threat is ignored because agencies disagree about jurisdiction.

Professional training and human-rights protections

The establishment of state police would also create a need for consistent professional standards across Nigeria.

Officers will require training appropriate to their duties, including lawful arrest, investigation, evidence handling, use of force, public-order policing and the protection of vulnerable people. Supervisors will need to understand how to monitor conduct and respond when procedures are breached.

Where states establish separate police services, the framework should make clear which minimum standards apply nationally and which matters states may regulate within their own jurisdictions.

Consistency is important for public confidence. People should be able to understand their basic rights and the responsibilities of police officers regardless of which state they are in.

Human-rights safeguards are particularly important during arrests, searches, detention, public demonstrations and investigations involving politically sensitive issues. Complaint processes should be accessible and should allow allegations to be examined impartially.

Independent review can also help identify patterns that may require wider changes in training, operational practice or command structures.

The draft legislation's effectiveness will depend on the details it establishes for discipline, oversight, investigation and judicial review. A framework that simply creates additional police formations without clarifying accountability would leave major concerns unresolved.

Public consultation and careful legal scrutiny can help identify those issues before the legislation is finalised.

What state assemblies must do beyond approving the amendment

The reported approvals represent decisions at the constitutional-review stage. They do not mean every state must immediately recruit officers or open police stations.

States would still need to consider the practical and legal requirements for establishing a police service under whatever constitutional and national legislation ultimately takes effect.

That may involve enacting state-level laws where required, establishing the appropriate command and oversight structures, preparing budgets, developing recruitment and training processes, and specifying how state police would interact with federal agencies.

States would also need to determine whether their existing security institutions can support the transition and which additional capacity would be required. Existing vigilante programmes, neighbourhood-security initiatives or state-backed security outfits cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to a constitutionally established police service.

The proposed system would require a defined legal status, powers and accountability arrangements.

Each state's implementation choices may reflect local security conditions and fiscal capacity, but they would need to remain consistent with national law and any applicable standards established for the dual policing structure.

The details should become clearer as the draft National Policing Bill and associated amendments are reviewed and published.

The constitutional process and presidential assent

The Presidential Working Group said the constitutional alteration could now return to the National Assembly for transmission to President Bola Tinubu for assent. That is the process described in its October 23 statement. [Source: State House, Abuja]

The legal process for constitutional alteration has generated differing explanations in official and public materials. The National Assembly's legislative-process guidance describes the two-thirds state approval as the stage that completes the constitutional threshold, while legal commentary from the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre notes that the Constitution does not expressly set out a presidential-assent requirement for constitutional alteration bills, although a Federal High Court decision in 2010 held that the President's signature was required. [Sources: National Assembly legislative-process guidance; Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre]

That distinction should be resolved through the applicable constitutional procedure and authoritative legal interpretation rather than by assuming that the government announcement settles every legal question.

For practical purposes, the immediate confirmed development is that the government says the state-assembly threshold has been met and that the amendment is advancing through the formal process. It is not yet evidence that state police forces have started operating under the proposed framework.

The accompanying National Policing Bill remains under drafting review, and further official documents will be needed to establish how the constitutional change is to be implemented.

A clear public account of the remaining steps would help avoid confusion about what has been approved, what remains under review and when the new arrangements could legally take effect.

What happens next?

The near-term milestone identified by the Presidential Working Group is the expected return of the draft National Policing Bill and 29 related amendment bills from the Federal Ministry of Justice by October 30, 2026.

After the documents return, the working group said it would conduct a final review before presenting the proposals to the President. It has described the drafting review as a step intended to ensure legal consistency and conformity with legislative standards. [Source: State House, Abuja]

Other next steps include confirming the official state-by-state record of approvals and completing the applicable constitutional process. The formal status of the proposed amendment will determine when implementation legislation can operate and what responsibilities the federal and state institutions will have.

Once the legal framework is settled, attention will turn to the readiness of individual states. Their ability to finance and manage police services, recruit and train officers, provide equipment and establish accountability systems will influence the pace and form of implementation.

The process will also require communication with the public. Residents, businesses and civil society groups will need to understand how the proposed services will work, what powers they will have and how complaints can be made.

The announcement of the constitutional threshold is therefore an important milestone, but it begins a new set of implementation questions rather than ending the debate.

Conclusion: a constitutional milestone, but implementation questions remain

Nigeria's state-policing proposal has reached the two-thirds state-assembly threshold, according to the Presidential Working Group's announcement on October 23. That marks a significant step in the effort to establish a dual policing system in which federal and state police services operate under a defined legal framework.

The constitutional proposal has passed both chambers of the National Assembly and received the required state-assembly approvals, according to the government's official count. Some media reports have published a different total, including Gombe in a list of approved states, so a consolidated official roll-call would help resolve the discrepancy.

The next steps include clarifying the remaining constitutional procedure, completing the drafting review of the National Policing Bill and associated amendments, and establishing the framework required for implementation. The government expects the draft bills to return from the Ministry of Justice by October 30 for further consideration.

The policy's eventual effect will depend on how the system is designed and funded. Local policing may create opportunities for better intelligence and quicker responses, but it will also require safeguards against political interference, unlawful conduct and gaps in accountability. Clear rules for cooperation between federal and state services will be essential.

For now, the milestone should be understood as progress in the constitutional process, not as confirmation that state police are already operational. The next legal and administrative decisions will determine how the proposal moves from approval to implementation.

Reporting note: Prepared Friday, 23 October 2026, at 17:31 WAT. The report uses the Presidential Working Group's official announcement, National Assembly guidance and current reporting. Because public reports differed on the state count and described the final constitutional steps differently, those points are identified rather than treated as fully resolved.