They Mocked Adeyeye's Call for State Police—Years Later, Nigeria Is Still Paying the Price.
Adeyeye Saw the Storm Coming. The Senate Chose to Look Away."
They Didn't Want Governors to Control Police—Now Criminals Control Entire Communities.
The resurfacing of an old video featuring former Senator and constitutional scholar Prof. Olusola Adeyeye has reignited national conversations about state policing, constitutional restructuring, and the future of Nigeria's federal system.
For many observers, the video serves as a reminder of warnings that were raised years ago but largely ignored by policymakers. It has also renewed scrutiny of Nigeria's constitutional framework, particularly the concentration of powers at the federal level and the limited authority granted to states despite the country being officially described as a federation.
In the video, Senator Adeyeye passionately criticized what he considered one of Nigeria's greatest structural problems—the disconnect between the country's federal identity and its highly centralized governance system. He questioned a constitutional arrangement that places the overwhelming majority of governmental responsibilities under federal control while leaving states with relatively limited powers.
His argument reflects a long-standing position held by many advocates of restructuring, who believe that Nigeria's Exclusive Legislative List grants excessive authority to the Federal Government in areas that could be more effectively managed by states. According to this school of thought, true federalism requires greater decentralization of power, resources, and responsibilities.
One of the most contentious aspects of this debate remains the establishment of state police.
Opponents of state policing often argue that governors could misuse such institutions to intimidate political opponents, suppress dissent, or influence elections. However, supporters of state police dismiss this argument as an oversimplification of a far more complex security challenge.
They argue that political interference in policing is not a phenomenon exclusive to state-controlled security structures. According to them, concerns about potential abuse should not become a permanent excuse for rejecting reforms that could significantly improve security across the country.
The old Senate footage has become particularly relevant in light of Nigeria's worsening security situation. During the period when terrorism and insurgency were rapidly escalating in parts of the country, Senator Adeyeye repeatedly appealed to lawmakers to accelerate legislative efforts toward creating state police. His warnings, however, failed to gain sufficient support among many of his colleagues.
Today, supporters of the proposal point to the rise of kidnapping, banditry, rural attacks, and other forms of violent crime as evidence that Nigeria may have lost valuable time in implementing critical security reforms.
Many believe that if stronger constitutional measures had been adopted years ago, states would have been better equipped to respond to local security threats through community-based intelligence gathering and rapid operational responses.
Critics of past administrations have also argued that successive governments, including the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, did not demonstrate enough political will to push through constitutional amendments that could have fundamentally transformed Nigeria's security architecture.
Yet advocates insist that the opportunity for reform still exists.
They maintain that no governance system is entirely immune from abuse. Every institution, whether federal or state, can be misused if adequate safeguards are not put in place. For them, the solution is not to abandon reform but to establish strong accountability mechanisms capable of preventing excesses while preserving the intended benefits.
Another aspect frequently highlighted in the debate is the financial reality of policing in Nigeria. Across the country, state governments routinely provide operational support to police formations through the purchase of vehicles, fuel, communication equipment, office infrastructure, and logistical assistance.
As a result, many governors already bear a significant portion of the financial burden associated with maintaining security within their states, despite having limited constitutional control over police operations. While Commissioners of Police are deployed to states, they ultimately remain accountable to the Inspector-General of Police through the federal chain of command.
Supporters of constitutional amendments argue that formalizing state policing would align responsibility with authority, allowing states to recruit, equip, manage, and supervise security personnel while reducing the operational burden on the Federal Government.
The resurfaced video has also generated discussion about the reactions of some lawmakers who appeared indifferent to Senator Adeyeye's emotional appeal at the time. To many observers, that moment symbolizes a broader failure by political leaders to adequately address structural issues before they evolved into national crises.
As the National Assembly continues deliberations on constitutional reforms and state policing, the debate remains deeply divided. Nevertheless, one reality is increasingly difficult to ignore: Nigeria's security challenges have continued to grow despite decades of centralized policing.
For proponents of state police, the lesson from Adeyeye's warning is simple. Delaying necessary reforms comes at a cost. Whether one supports or opposes state policing, the urgency of finding effective and lasting solutions to Nigeria's security crisis can no longer be denied.
For them, the question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the country can afford to postpone it any longer.
0 Comments