The Constitution amendment to permit State Police has secured the required approval of State Houses of Assembly. The next challenge is to complete the constitutional process transparently and establish a workable system of policing, with safeguards against political abuse.
On 3 November 2026, the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, announced that his office had received and verified reports and accompanying Votes and Proceedings from 28 State Houses of Assembly. On 4 November 2026, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu announced during House of Representatives plenary that approvals had been received from 29 States, while Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele reported approval from 30 States in the Senate.
Although all the figures exceed the minimum required under Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, they shift attention from whether the amendment has secured sufficient state support to the integrity of the final legislative record, the status of transmission, and the considerable work required before any State Police Service can operate.
Publish the Verified State Returns
The Clerk’s confirmation addresses the uncertainty surrounding the Presidential Working Group’s announcement on 23 October 2026 that 24 State Houses of Assembly had approved the amendment. While the Working Group’s announcement reported progress, the Clerk’s subsequent confirmation provides the formal administrative record on which the National Assembly can act.
The distinction matters because the constitutional process rests on resolutions duly passed by the State Houses of Assembly and formally received and authenticated through the legislative process.
The reported figures of 28, 29, and 30 are not necessarily inconsistent, as additional returns may have been received between the respective announcements. Nevertheless, the National Assembly should publish a consolidated schedule showing each state’s decision, the date of its resolution and the date its authenticated return was received.
The Senate identified Abia, Benue, Cross River, Kano, Niger, and Oyo as the six States whose positions remained outstanding, although Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin indicated that Kano’s approval was on its way.
Where a state was previously reported as having approved the amendment, but its authenticated resolution had not yet been received, the difference should be clarified. A public announcement of approval and the receipt of a verified legislative resolution are separate events.
Publishing a consolidated record of the resolutions received and verified would settle any outstanding questions without diminishing the achievement. A constitutional reform of this importance deserves a clear and accessible documentary record.
Has the Bill Been Transmitted?
The announcement read in the House on 4 November 2026 referred to a direction to transmit the Bill to the President that day, while the Senate gave the six outstanding State Assemblies until 15 November 2026 to communicate their positions.
Public reports of the proceedings described transmission as completed, while others indicated that it was still to follow. The National Assembly should resolve this uncertainty by publishing the transmission date and confirming delivery to the Presidency, as a direction to transmit is not evidence that transmission has been completed.
The 15 November 2026 deadline should also be understood in light of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires approval by at least two-thirds of the States; it does not require unanimity. Once the necessary valid approvals have been secured, outstanding responses do not increase that constitutional threshold. Equally, an Assembly’s failure to respond should be recorded as an absence of communicated approval, rather than presented as an express vote against the amendment.
The Clerk has also observed that Section 9 does not expressly prescribe a third reading for a Constitution alteration Bill. This observation should not be taken to dispense with the required voting thresholds or other applicable procedural requirements. The safest foundation for the reform remains a complete record demonstrating compliance at every stage.
Constitutional Approval Is Only the Beginning
Completion of the Constitution amendment process will provide the legal foundation for State Police, but operational Police services will require further steps in each State.
As described during legislative consideration, each State Police Service must first be established by State law and certified as meeting national minimum standards before it can begin operations. The reform will therefore depend on further Federal legislation, State legislation, and demonstrable institutional readiness.
The proposed National Policing Bill is intended to supply much of that operational framework. On 20 October 2026, the Presidential Working Group announced that it had submitted the draft Bill and 29 consequential amendment Bills to the Federal Ministry of Justice on 19 October 2026.
The Ministry was expected to return the validated drafts by 30 October 2026, after which the Working Group would review them and present them to the President. This announcement established a drafting timetable but did not establish that the Bills had reached the National Assembly.
The government should publish an updated timetable and make the legislative package available for public examination. Stakeholders need to see how the principal bill and consequential amendments fit together, particularly where they affect existing police powers, criminal procedure, firearms control and oversight institutions.
A Demanding Legislative Agenda
A principal Policing Bill and 29 consequential amendments present a major legislative undertaking. Their consideration close to the end-of-year recess and a general election creates pressure for either hurried passage or prolonged delay.
The National Assembly should establish a clear scrutiny timetable, publish the Bills, and hold meaningful public hearings. Clause-by-clause examination should test how the proposed federal and state services will share responsibilities, exchange intelligence, investigate cross-border offences, and resolve jurisdictional disputes.
The implementing legislation must also establish clear certification requirements, including who will assess State readiness, the evidence required, how decisions may be challenged, and what happens when an operating service falls below the prescribed standards.
Certification must assess practical capacity, including trained personnel, sustainable funding, secure armouries, lawful detention facilities, complaints procedures, and systems for recording arrests and the use of force. The same minimum standards should protect citizens in every participating state.
Funding and Safeguards Will Determine Credibility
States wishing to establish Police Services will face substantial continuing costs, as recruitment and equipment are only the beginning. Salaries, pensions, training, investigations, communications, maintenance and supervision will require dependable funding over many years.
Each participating State should therefore publish a costed implementation plan and explain how it will finance the Service without undermining other essential responsibilities. Any Federal assistance should follow transparent criteria and carry clear reporting and audit requirements.
Accountability will depend on how effectively the safeguards against partisan abuse, outlined during Senate consideration, are translated into procedures that officers can follow and citizens can enforce. These include defined grounds for federal intervention, oversight, and judicial review.
The implementing laws should therefore protect operational decisions from unlawful political direction, provide accessible and independent complaints mechanisms, and establish consequences for officers and officials who misuse Police powers.
State Houses of Assembly will have substantial responsibilities for legislation, appropriations, and oversight. Their effectiveness will depend on their willingness and capacity to question Governors, examine expenditure, and investigate misconduct.
Existing vigilante and neighbourhood security organisations will also require explicit transitional rules. Their personnel should not acquire Police powers automatically, as any integration should require individual vetting, training, and compliance with the standards governing the new services.
Election Security Requires Particular Care
The remaining legislative and institutional requirements make deployment of newly constituted State Police Services before the January 2027 elections highly unlikely. This is a practical assessment rather than a legal deadline, as lawful commencement will depend on the passage of the relevant legislation, establishment requirements, and certification.
Election security planning should therefore proceed under existing lawful arrangements. Constitutional approval must not be treated as authority to deploy uncertified State Police formations or confer Police powers on existing local security outfits.
For future elections, the National Policing Bill should establish clear rules on deployment, coordination, operational command, and accountability. It should expressly address partisan intimidation, discriminatory enforcement, and the misuse of arrest or investigative powers against political opponents, journalists, and election observers.
The credibility of State policing will ultimately depend on the confidence of Nigerians in its impartiality. Citizens must be able to trust that State Police Officers will protect them and enforce the law without regard to their political affiliation. Decentralising Police authority may bring law enforcement closer to communities, but that proximity will mean little if State Police become instruments of political control rather than institutions of public protection.
The immediate priorities are to publish the authenticated State House of Assembly returns, clarify the Bill’s transmission status, release the implementing legislation, and establish credible funding, certification and accountability arrangements.