In this analysis by Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka Our Managing Editor in Abuja the Federal Capital Territory FCT writes that on the same day the Senate debated state police, two positions clashed. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele offered constitutional guardrails. Senator Abba Moro asked about money, abuse and survival. Between structure and experience lies the real test of the proposal.
July 15, 2026 presented two faces of Nigeria’s security debate. In Abuja, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele laid out how state police would be insulated from abuse. In the same chamber, Senator Abba Moro buried 20 of his constituents and warned that communities may resort to self-defence.
Bamidele, Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on 1999 Constitution Review, anchored his case on one word: independence. For him, the core problem is funding control. The solution is to make state police funding a “first-line charge,” like the judiciary.
He argued that the Commissioner of Police and State Police Service Commission must have “a guaranteed source of funds provided for in the 1999 Constitution” so the police chief is not “subject to the whims and caprices of a state governor.”
That is a direct response to history. Bamidele acknowledged that public fears “are well founded” and “informed by what has happened under the First Republic” when regional police became political weapons under the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions.
To prevent a repeat, he said the National Assembly is building “multi-tiered guardrails” around personnel discipline, institutional independence and fiscal autonomy. The goal: a police that answers to law, not to a governor’s mood.
Bamidele went further. Abuse will not come only from politicians. “Business class can also abuse it. Some other organisations, even criminals or cabals, can abuse state police service because it is a question of ‘he who pays the piper dictates the tune.”
His conclusion is stark: “If a state police service is not well funded by any means, we have a situation where it may as well be a highway to nowhere. That is one thing all of us must prevent.”
He also explained the constitutional mechanics: moving policing from the Exclusive to Concurrent Legislative List so states can establish their own police, with a specific percentage of state budgets earmarked and access rules clearly spelt out.
On the other side of the chamber, Senator Abba Moro, Minority Leader, spoke from grief, not theory. He had just moved the motion condemning the killing of 18 people in Akpachi-Ugboju and Otukpo-Nobi, and two more in Ondo-Ugboju.
Moro’s position on state police is blunt: “I told you here before that I’m not a good student of the state police.” He accepts the majority decision, but his skepticism is rooted in what he sees on the ground in Benue.
His evidence is the existing informal architecture. Benue has Operation Zenda, Volunteer Guards and Homeland Security. According to him, “the 15,000 naira personnel or the operation fund in every state have not been paid,” and logistics are missing.
He gave a recent example: cattle rustlers killed a cow owner, were confronted by volunteer guards, killed one guard, wounded another, and escaped with the cows. “That is to tell you the sense of unpreparedness,” he said.
From that, Moro asked the central fiscal question Bamidele must answer: “If you are unable to equip these informal security outfits to pay a stipend of 15,000 naira… where are you going to get the money to fund the state police?”
His second fear is political capture. “How are we sure… that the state police will not be put to use the way the state independent electoral commission have been put in recent times, endangering our democracy?”
Moro’s summary: “Those asking for state police are asking for it as an institution to put whatever use they want, not necessarily as an institution to confront the menace of the security.”
The clash is clear. Bamidele is designing structure. Moro is testing structure against reality. One speaks of constitutional percentages. The other speaks of unpaid stipends and dead volunteers.
Both, however, agree on the risk of abuse. Bamidele warns of governors, businessmen and cabals. Moro warns of governors and political misuse like SIECs. The difference is in remedy.
Bamidele’s remedy is legal: first-line charge, constitutional guarantee, budget percentage. It assumes that law can restrain power if money is untouchable.
Moro’s remedy is experiential: fix what exists first. If states cannot fund volunteers, how will they fund a full police with training, weapons, welfare and oversight?
The Senate’s own resolution that day complicates both positions. It condemned the Benue killings and mandated the IGP to hunt the perpetrators, while also asking NEMA and the Humanitarian Ministry to send relief.
That resolution shows the current model is reactive. Bamidele says state police will make it proactive. Moro says without money and political will, it will be reactive at 36 levels instead of one.
The critical gap in Bamidele’s proposal is enforcement. Who disciplines a rogue commissioner? Who audits the “percentage” to ensure it is not diverted? Who protects the police from governors who comply on paper but sabotage in practice?
The critical gap in Moro’s position is alternatives. If state police is not the answer, what is? Centralized policing has failed Benue South. Volunteers are dying. The status quo is also a “highway to nowhere.
Conclusion: The Senate is right to debate guardrails before powers. Bamidele has given a framework for independence. Moro has given a reality check on capacity and trust. For state police to work, Nigeria must merge both: constitutional funding plus federal support, plus oversight, plus a plan to fund what already exists. Without that merger, the proposal risks decentralizing failure.
