What the reporting shows
According to reporting by Vanguard (Nigeria) on 29 September 2026, former Cross River state governor and presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party, Donald Duke, called for the establishment of police structures at all levels of government. Duke stated that Nigeria's current centralised security system cannot effectively counter terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and other violent crimes impacting communities across the country. He argued that the concentration of law enforcement authority within a single federal command structure leaves local jurisdictions undefended against regional security threats. Duke advocated for constitutional and policy changes that would permit state and local government administrations to establish, equip and manage independent police forces tailored to local operational needs.
Why this matters now
The proposal by Donald Duke highlights a persistent structural flaw in Nigeria's internal security architecture. Under the present constitution, law enforcement authority is monopolised by the federal government through the Nigeria Police Force. This arrangement creates severe operational bottlenecks, as federal commands in Abuja control deployment decisions across vast territories experiencing varied security threats. Local government councils and state governors lack the direct authority to deploy law enforcement personnel to counter emerging threats within their jurisdictions, despite bearing political responsibility for public safety.
We assess that the call for state and local government policing reflects growing discontent among political actors with federal law enforcement outcomes. Terrorism in the north-east, widespread banditry and mass kidnappings in the north-west, and armed militancy and violent crime in southern zones demonstrate the operational limits of the national police apparatus. By advocating for multi-tier policing, the Peoples Redemption Party candidate is tapping into a broader governance debate regarding federalism, sub-national autonomy and territorial security management. The adoption of multi-tier law enforcement would represent a fundamental restructuring of state authority, shifting tactical control over local security from national headquarters to municipal and state leadership.
Political trajectory
Over the next 6 to 18 months, political debates concerning the decentralisation of police powers will intensify as national elections approach (high confidence). We assess that opposition parties will increasingly adopt multi-tier policing proposals as major policy platforms to challenge the incumbent administration's security record (high confidence). Sub-national political leaders, including state governors across political lines, will likely escalate demands for constitutional amendments granting state-level policing authority to protect local economic and physical infrastructure (moderate confidence).
However, legislative progress through the National Assembly will face structural obstacles (high confidence). Central authorities and incumbent federal lawmakers remain cautious about granting state governors direct control over armed police units. Critics worry that sub-national executives could weaponise state police forces against political opponents during election cycles or use them to suppress local civil society activities (moderate confidence). Consequently, parliament will likely debate compromise framework options, such as creating state-level policing boards subject to federal regulatory oversight or expanding community policing units within the existing federal framework (low confidence). A full constitutional transition to autonomous municipal and state police forces remains unlikely without broad multi-party consensus across both legislative chambers (high confidence).
Security implications
The ongoing centralisation of security management has direct consequences for operational efficiency and territorial control. Federal police forces are currently overstretched, under-resourced and slow to respond to rapid security breakdowns in rural and peripheral regions. Banditry networks and armed groups exploit these coverage gaps, establishing camps in remote forests and launching incursions into unprotected communities along major transport corridors.
If multi-tier policing were implemented, local forces could enhance intelligence collection, shorten response times and maintain a continuous operational presence in vulnerable rural districts (moderate confidence). Local officers drawn from resident communities often possess superior geographic knowledge and social capital compared to federally deployed personnel transferred across linguistic and cultural lines.
Conversely, transitioning to a multi-tier framework carries immediate operational risks during the implementation phase. Uncoordinated command structures between federal, state and municipal police units could lead to jurisdictional friction, intelligence hoarding and operational confusion during joint operations against well-armed bandit groups or terrorist networks (moderate confidence). Also, variations in funding and training capacities between wealthy and fiscally strained states could create uneven security coverage, driving criminal networks towards poorly resourced jurisdictions (high confidence).
Business implications
Persistent internal insecurity under the current centralised regime creates severe operational challenges for commercial entities, logistics operators and foreign investors across Nigeria. Armed banditry along primary highway corridors elevates transit risk, forcing businesses to invest heavily in private armed escorts, vehicle tracking systems and secure logistics hubs. Agricultural production and mining operations in rural areas face constant operational interruptions, extortion and personnel safety risks from criminal syndicates operating in policing vacuums.
A move towards state and local government policing could yield targeted operational benefits for commercial enterprises if sub-national forces effectively secure key trade corridors and industrial zones (low confidence). Improved local policing could lower insurance premiums and reduce reliance on expensive private security escorts over time.
However, the transition process could introduce regulatory and financial uncertainties for private sector entities. State and local administrations seeking to fund new police institutions might impose local security surcharges, corporate levies or special property taxes on operating businesses (moderate confidence). Companies would also need to adapt to distinct state-level regulatory environments and coordinate with multiple law enforcement agencies across different administrative boundaries, raising administrative overheads and compliance complexity.
NGO/humanitarian implications
Humanitarian organisations and non-governmental entities operating across peripheral districts experience high operational exposure due to inadequate local policing. Mass kidnappings for ransom, highway ambushes and armed raids directly target field staff, aid convoys and operational centres. The inability of federal police forces to maintain permanent outposts in remote communities forces humanitarian agencies to operate under strict movement restrictions, reducing access to vulnerable populations.
Establishing state and local police forces could enhance duty-care frameworks for non-governmental organisations by providing reliable local response capabilities and improved security intelligence regarding regional threat vectors (moderate confidence). A persistent municipal police presence along aid delivery routes could facilitate safer transport of relief materials and reduce the necessity for strict curfew protocols.
Despite these potential gains, decentralised policing introduces complex acceptance and neutrality challenges for humanitarian actors. Operating in regions governed by state-controlled police forces could complicate civil-military coordination and perception management, particularly if local forces become entangled in local political or ethnic disputes. Humanitarian personnel would need to establish separate liaison frameworks with municipal, state and national law enforcement bodies, increasing administrative burdens and requiring careful management to maintain perceived neutrality across target communities.
What to monitor next
- Formal introduction of police reform bills in the National Assembly. Trigger: Legislative filing of constitutional amendment proposals for state police creation.
- Policy statements from the Nigeria Governors' Forum regarding sub-national police funding models. Trigger: Governors presenting a unified legislative position to federal authorities.
- Public position declarations by federal security chiefs and the Ministry of Police Affairs. Trigger: Senior security leadership officially endorsing or opposing police decentralisation.
- Peoples Redemption Party manifesto releases detailing sub-national security governance frameworks. Trigger: Publication of formal PRP policy documents outlining police implementation plans.
- Changes in crime statistics along primary interstate transport routes. Trigger: Escalation of highway kidnappings prompting local community self-defence initiatives.
Reporting basis
According to reporting by Vanguard (Nigeria) on 29 September 2026, gathered via strategic and political risk monitoring, former Cross River state governor and PRP presidential candidate Donald Duke publicly advocated for establishing state and local government police structures to combat terrorism, banditry and kidnapping. The primary record provides no details on the specific statutory language proposed by the Peoples Redemption Party, the position of incumbent federal police leadership, or formal legislative timetables within the National Assembly. Consequently, the legal mechanisms, financial provisions and operational parameters for implementing multi-tier policing in Nigeria remain unverified in the current record.