103
By Tracy Moses
The fierce debate over the creation of state police has taken a dramatic turn as a member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, declared that state governors cannot be trusted with armed security forces, citing their “shameless manipulation” of local government elections as evidence that they would abuse such powers for political ends.
Gagdi, who represents Pankshin/Kanam/Kanke Federal Constituency of Plateau State, accused governors of routinely weaponising State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) to rig council elections, eliminate opposition parties, and entrench one-party rule. He warned that giving them control of police commands would amount to “arming autocrats.”
“If they cannot even manage a state electoral commission fairly, how do you trust them with AK-47s?” Gagdi told journalists at the National Assembly. “If they misuse the civil authority they already have, by strangling opposition, arresting opponents and announcing results they want, how do you think they’ll behave when they control armed police under their command?”
The lawmaker’s warning comes as the National Assembly considers far-reaching constitutional amendments, including proposals to decentralise policing. The move has been strongly backed by President Bola Tinubu and many state governors, who argue that state police are essential to tackling Nigeria’s worsening insecurity.
But Gagdi dismissed those arguments, insisting that the governors’ track record shows they are more interested in consolidating political power than in protecting citizens.
“No matter how you describe it, INEC has conducted elections where opposition parties govern over 10 states,” he said. “But name one state where a SIEC-conducted election produced even 2 per cent opposition councillors. In most states, opposition parties do not win a single chairmanship seat. That tells you how much they respect democracy.”
Rather than handing governors control of armed officers, Gagdi urged the Federal Government to strengthen existing community policing structures already recognised under the Police Act. He argued that the model allows citizens and traditional rulers to play direct roles in securing their communities without centralising force in political hands.
“We already have community policing in the current Police Act. Why not strengthen that?” he asked. “At the local level, it is chaired by the paramount ruler. At the state level, the commissioner of police and the council of chiefs oversee it. This keeps the police accountable and rooted in the people they serve.”
Gagdi maintained that a combination of federal and community policing would deliver safety and stability without the grave risk of creating “state-level dictatorships.”
“Community policing gives people more power to protect their communities than state police ever would,” he said. “With both systems working hand in hand, there would be less incentive to break the law, and less room for governors to abuse power,” he said.