Two Arguments Against State Police

July 5, 2018 Greg Abolo

The Oasis Reporters

July 4, 2018

I

The spate of killings in Nigeria has heightened the clamour for the constitutional establishment of state-owned police. Reasons are: one, a centralized police force in Abuja cannot literally maintain peace and order in the remotest nooks and fringes of a large Nigeria— given its limited staff, more so; two, local areas are better policed by officers who are familiar with the cultural terrain of the people, their language and practices; three and chief, it makes little sense to give states the power to make a law and yet withhold the means to execute the law.

This third reason has become more relevant in recent times as killings by herdsmen continue on a more horrible scale.

How important are these reasons in the light of the dangers inherent in the idea of different police forces established across the 36 states of the federation?

One of the dangers, according to some critics of state police and of restructuring in general, is the likelihood that a state police force would be hijacked by the government of the state and used for selfish purposes to fight political wars and deal with opposition. This way, the essence of the institution—ensuring security at the grass root by exact policing— would have been botched.

This fear is admissible. Given the kind of human climate in which we live in Nigeria, it is not to be debated that individuals, especially the members of the political and wealthy class (as well as individuals aspiring to join this class), generally have no inkling of respect for institutions and principles as means for social stability and development. The instruments of force are generally deployed by these people for the purpose of unsettling the waters for the attainment of their personal interests.

Recent happenings at the federal level of government involving the police and some legislators show this. Even with the lack of constitutional powers over the police commands in the state they govern, some governors have been found using the force to humiliate their critics and opposition in the past. In the ongoing buildup toward July 14 governorship election in Ekiti State, the passion is tense on who among the fighters in the battle will use the security forces for intimidation and technical rigging.

The above argument then becomes somehow fearsome when we imagine 36 governors having the direct power to give marching orders to a police force under them. The governor that pays their salaries and allowances, promotes them, employs and disciplines them (through the police service commission, if there is any), will not need any special advice to deploy his police in the face of dwindling popularity and uncertain poll outcomes.

Decentralizing national security, therefore, is fragmenting the ‘legitimate’ power of bully and intimidation. Force is the way political juggernauts legitimize their selfish interests.

Another potent problem in the issue of state-owned police force is discipline. The question could be asked: is the problem of insecurity in Nigeria actually a result of absence of police commanded by states? Insecurity in Nigeria, it seems, owes so much to lack of discipline in a police force whose main line of instruction is the hundreds of thousands its officers must extort from motorists on the highways. Nowadays, one hardly knows whether the police exists for executing peace and orderliness or for disrupting businesses and causing havoc to trade. On the highways, officers at uncountable checkpoints within a kilometer do not look in a vehicle to ensure it’s free of criminals and dangerous possessions such as fire arms; they only give numbers and tallies to drivers to show they have turned in their #50 levies. If only police officers would check commuters for safety, this argument goes, many weapons used in causing calamity would not have gained entry into the unfortunate communities, and many kidnappers would have been denied the slightest passage.

Now imagine the creation of police forces in the 36 states; then imagine them inheriting the culture of indiscipline, extortion, bribe taking and lack of focus!

III

How can anyone beat the preceding arguments? Of what use are institutions after they have been bastardized?
They become useless burdens, unneeded artifacts draining the heritage (for maintenance). Our society is very fearsome; it is a place where any attempt to propose a good cause is a dangerous adventure—it will come up against countless genuine reasons why it is dead on arrival. Nevertheless, the urgency of state police will triumph over every negative argument; state police has never been so urgent as ever in Nigeria.

First, our fear concerning the unruly behaviour of politicians is based on current realities: the existing federal police force and other security agencies of government have, at one point or another, been deployed by their masters in government to pursue uncivil, selfish ends, or have pursued unruly behaviours against the opposition or in elections in ‘their perceived’ interests of their masters. Despite this, we have never requested the government to disband its police and security forces. The reason we have not asked this and are not likely going to do so is we know that government uses them to implement its laws; that the government cannot continue to exist without implementing its laws. Whether it has effectively done so or not, we know it does so often, and believe it is wrong for the police force not to implement government laws.

The unruly behaviour of politicians therefore does not rule out the necessity of the means of implementation of wherever law making is legitimate. Therefore, if we expect the states to make laws for good governance, peace and orderliness, we must give the lawmaker the right to constitute his instrument of law enforcement.

In this regard, effective leadership is the question. Just as the existing federal police is suffering from ineffective leadership, states’ police could suffer too. But this will not remove the need for the police as long as we have not decided to do away with state authority.

Second—concerning discipline among officers. It is hard to think that with a disciplined federal police, the need for state police ceases to bite. Hundreds of communities in Nigeria see a police officer only when the convoy of a government official passes through. It is interesting that the few officers are on the road, taking bribes and collecting illegal rates. Communities are policed; many are not policed at all.

It raises a point of concern, something the people need to understand when the government deploys tens of thousands of police officers (and tanks) to a single state during election, as has been done in the past. (For the oncoming Ekiti elections, it’s been reported that about 30 thousand officers are going to be deployed?) Where were these ‘legions’ of officers ‘all the while’ before the election: were they lodging in the headquarters or some hotels? Why had they not been deployed into the communities lacking police presence? If they were not less busy, who then is now securing the communities they were manning, now that they have been moved away for the purpose of election?

It is clear: communities are not adequately policed, reasons among being that federal police is understaffed, under-resourced and under-managed; within the context of the policing demand of a large territory of people who are extra-plenty in population and customs. This shortfall in the capacity of the federal government is there, and it indicates the need for states to provide platforms for securing their jurisdictions, at least as a complement to the efforts at the center.

In the end, what would matter is that states should create institutions, principles and practices of justice and professionalism towards minimizing the impact of the corrupt culture of society on their police staff. Effective leadership is paramount, and it is the society that will produce this.

States need resources to establish and maintain police force— nothing can be truer than this. But while for critics of state police this is obstacle, for us it only sheds light further on the need for economic and political restructuring of Nigeria, which is the only basis for prosperity that can engender the virtues of a civilized society. Our goal is security. We should do anything to achieve it. Why do governments exist besides the prosperity of the people and their security?

Therefore, restructuring of the mode of control of resources and opportunities (which is both political and economic), is a perennial necessity. It will put states on the path of self-engendered robustness or self-inflicted poverty depending on their respective effort and astuteness in building trade and economy in their domains. It is more likely than not, that sensible states will do everything possible to build their economy. It is much more likely that sensible states will invest their surpluses in security and human development. Besides, a robust economy of a people who do well in their various trades and employments will burst most of the potent threats to security. The future of states in Africa is not based on force; it is going to derive energy only from citizens’ love for their country and wilful cooperation. Forceful obedience and violent repression of dissidents cannot sustain for long as instruments of force and violence are getting fairly distributed among non-state actors. Restructuring is the basis for a violence-free future.