Lawyer, Liborous Oshoma, has thrown his weight behind the establishment of state police in Nigeria, describing it as a desirable step in addressing the country’s security challenges.
However, he cautioned against concentrating excessive powers in the hands of governors, warning that allowing them to appoint, control and fund state police without adequate safeguards could result in abuse and undermine democratic accountability.
“It is desirable. It is something we can do, but all hands must have to be on deck. We should draw our experience from the Independent Electoral Commissions at the state level, and we see how they have been abused. The reason why state police has been a strong debate, and it has not come to fruition, is the fact that people strongly believe that they will be abused by the governors. They are already emperors anyway, and if you give them state policing, they will take it to a new normal.
“It is not enough to just say the chief security officer will have to be in charge of everything, especially as regards funding. Why should we, at this stage, also put that responsibility of appointing, let’s say the Commissioner of Police at the state level or the Inspector General of the state police, within the purview or on the desks of the governor? That will also amount to abuse,” he warned.
Oshoma argued an independent body should oversee the discipline and remuneration of state police officers to prevent abuse. He warned that allowing governors to appoint state police chiefs and control funding and discipline would concentrate excessive powers in their hands and heighten fears of political interference.
“I believe that there should be an independent body, way outside of the powers of the governor, that should be able to discipline and recommend the salaries and remunerations of the state police so that we can draw experience from the challenges we are facing with the federal police. The power to now appoint, dictate, remunerate, and so on will be so enormous. Like we say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We already see what the governors are doing, and that’s a major fear that people are having. That fear should be addressed seriously to give the opposition some level of comfort,” he urged.
Highlighting the reasons previous attempts failed, Oshoma said fears that governors could abuse state police powers to target opponents and suppress voters had remained a major obstacle. However, he noted that worsening insecurity has made the proposal more attractive, as local policing would improve intelligence gathering and response times.
“Permit me to say this, other attempts have failed because we didn’t have this kind of challenge that we have now. The fears are still there. Everybody is talking about the governors, the powers of the governor, that the governors are going to abuse this, they are going to use it to hound the opposition, and they are going to use it to suppress voters during state elections and the rest.
But the fact that insecurity has been so heightened now gives room for people to sit down and say, ‘let’s even look at an alternative.'”
Responding to concerns that constitutional safeguards could weaken state policing, Oshoma argued that strong legal frameworks are necessary to prevent abuse and excessive concentration of power.
“If you look at our law, go read Section 197 that spells out state powers, for example. Look at Section 214, Section 215, and Section 216. All of these sections talk about federal policing, stating that there shall be no other police apart from the federal police. So certainly, you will amend all of these sections for you to have a state police,” he said.
Rejecting claims that safeguards would weaken governors’ authority as chief security officers, Oshoma argued that accountability does not require absolute control over state police. He maintained that an independent body should oversee appointments, discipline and funding to prevent political interference and abuse of power.
“That’s not true. The chief security officer of the state does not necessarily mean that the police will be answerable to only him. The responsibility of government is the security and welfare of the people. So if that is the responsibility of the government, then the chief security officer of the state does not necessarily have to dictate, or that the police commissioner must kowtow to the whims and caprices of the governor for him to become the chief security officer of the state.
“So let’s also remove the powers of appointing the state police commissioner from the hands of the governor. Let’s have an independent agency that can discipline this policing. That way, it does not remove the powers of the governor to become the chief executive officer of the state. The agency is still answerable. The governor should not be the sole financier of the state policing, because he who pays the piper dictates the tune. The debate is still open, and we should actually look at it before we just rush into it and then it becomes subject to abuse,” he warned.
Addressing concerns over governors’ influence on state police, Oshoma advocated a state police commission made up of representatives of professional bodies and civil society groups rather than appointees of the governor alone.
“If you have a state police commission, for example, the governor should not be saddled with the responsibility of nominating every member of that commission. Other agencies, other organizations, civil society, the journalists, the bar, the medical association, can also volunteer and nominate members to this security commission because, like I said, security is everybody’s responsibility,” he said.
Highlighting what he described as the biggest threat to the success of state policing, the legal practitioner said widespread fears that governors would abuse the system remained a major concern. He stressed the need to limit governors’ control to prevent state police from becoming worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
“That is the same fear that everybody is entertaining. I did an article on it yesterday on Facebook, and in the comments, most of the comments and fears entertained by people is that the governors are going to abuse it. That our governors already are emperors, and if not properly controlled and checked, that they are going to abuse it. And it will end up even becoming worse than the problem that we are addressing. So that’s the area. That’s why I have consistently hammered on that, that we need to find a way to dilute the powers of the governor to have absolute control over the state police,” he reiterated.
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
