STATE POLICE, POLICE STATE

“No System of government was ever so ill devised that, under proper men, it wouldn’t work well enough.”

William Penn, 1644 – 1718

The respected former Director-General of National Security organization (NSO) and a former top policeman, Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi recently made a strong case for the introduction of police formations to be controlled and managed by State Governments. He made the case in the context of the current concerns over the need to improve the state of our national security; as well as the many problems which have arisen in the course of implementing a constitutional provision which vests control and management of the police exclusively under the Federal Government. The case he made also noted a widely-known fact that State Governments assume huge responsibilities for the upkeep and maintenance of the Nigeria Police, but have very little control over its operation.  He drew attention to the negative influences of State Governments on the police, particularly the tendency to subvert its neutrality and integrity in the achievement of partisan political goals by State Governors. Collusion and corruption at higher levels of State Governments and police leadership have created situations where the effectiveness and credibility of the Nigeria Police have become severely compromised. Finally, he reminded the nation that much of the criticism against state police is entirely informed by unfounded prejudice, because a state police had not existed in the nation’s history in the strict sense of the concept. The case he made is basically that state police will improve the management of internal security and the maintenance of law and order, because local communities are likely to be more involved, and those with power will also have responsibility to determine how a vital institution like the police operates.

Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi is well-placed and eminently-qualified to understand the weaknesses of the Nigeria Police, and the manner the political context in which it operates can affect its effectiveness. A lawyer and an intelligence officer who made his mark at a time the NSO was rated among the best of such organizations in the world, he also has genuine roots with the traditional authorities in the north, as well as an extensive network of relationships across the entire nation. A well-read man who has never shied away from offering his views in public on matters of national security, he is highly regarded in national and international circles as an authority on security management in Nigeria.

Alhaji Umaru Shinhafi has an extensive understanding of the operations and limitations of the Nigeria police; so when he makes the case for the establishment of state police, the nation should consider his advice very seriously. The examples of advanced industrialized democracies that have state or regional police which enjoy high degrees of autonomy, and effective collaboration with central police and each other, and which operate at very high levels of efficiency also speak volumes for the case being made by the Marafan Sokoto. Among the most telling arguments he makes for the introduction of state police is the position he puts forward that critics of the idea have no historical basis for their criticism. In spite of the existence of Native Authority and federal police prior to the unification of the police under the Nigeria Police Force, he says those local police operated only with limited powers, were substantially decentralized, but effective in dealing with local crime, protecting law and order and in intelligence gathering.

Sceptics and hostile opponents of the establishment of state police should pay more than a cursory glance to the case for state police put forward by the Marafan Sokoto. The professionalism and overall impact of the Nigeria police in maintaining internal security, law and order and fighting crime has been declining at such a rate that millions of Nigerians now see the police as a major liability, unless you want an illegal act to be committed, and you have the money to pay for it. The federal government which controls and manages it all but publicly acknowledges it as its biggest handicap in the fight against crime. In the last ten years, we have had numerous Inspectors-General of police, and the last one was removed because of the spectacular failure of the police to handle the Boko Haram insurgency. The federal government is supposed to finance the operations and maintenance of the police, but it does this substantially by default, or so it would appear. Time after time Nigerians accuse it of active collusion in subverting the electoral process, and sundry abuses of human rights. State and Local Governments spend huge amounts in providing logistics, allowances and many other unseen forms of assistance to the police. Yet, state governors particularly complain that what they have is responsibility for the police, but no power over them. As chief security officers, they have no power under the law to direct the police command in their states to undertake any activity unless it is cleared and authorised by superior police authorities outside the state. When, in order to allow the police in states some flexibility, their superiors outside the state give them room for some initiative or decision-making, governors complain that the relative autonomy and flexibility is put at the disposal of governors only at great cost. They find that they have to fund every emergency or contingency, even though the nation knows that billions are routinely budgeted for police operations and contingencies. What they do not publicly say, however, is that they routinely put police commands in their states to marginally-legal or out rightly-illegal use, most often around partisan political activities.

Governors complain that superiors of Police Commissioners in states at Zonal or National Headquarters are too removed from the ground to appreciate the need for some specific engagements or operations; and in many instances, the federal government uses its monopoly over the control of police operations to hamstring or frustrate them in exercising their responsibilities as chief security officers. When Commissioners of Police and State Chief Executives build close relationships, they are suspected by superiors of colluding to achieve narrow political objectives. Governors who are not in States controlled by ruling parties say that they literally have to buy loyalty of the Police, and even this does not guarantee that they will not face periodic hostility or obstruction. Funds expended by the Federal and State Governments together on the same police are impossible to establish; and this represents a worrying source of corruption. Finally, the case has long been made that a federal system which centralises policing severely crippled the capacities of federating units to function as effective levels of government.

Below the state level, all chairmen of Local Governments know you have to literally pay for operations of the police units deployed to the Area. At lower levels, the  police have very few linkages with the communities with which they are to work, and have few incentives to be transparent or accountable. Citizens who report crimes have pay for investigations every step of the way. When you report a crime, you have to fund logistics, intelligence, investigations and sometimes even prosecution if, that is, suspects are found. If you are unable to do this, your case is as good as dead, unless you have powerful political connections in lieu of a strong financial clout. This is why many citizens say to report crimes to our police is to risk suffering double jeopardy. The Nigeria Police has acquired a global reputation as the embodiment of crime, and most Nigerians will readily admit that the fight against corruption and serious crimes will not be won with the type of police Nigeria has.

If any evidence is needed that the manner our police is controlled, structured and managed is fundamentally flawed, they only need to look at the fact that in the last ten years, the size and funding of the Nigeria police has more than doubled. Yet, crimes are rising, and more significantly, the nature of the crimes are such that they represent far more serious threats to larger numbers of lives and the security of the entire polity. Before initial skirmishers were even over, the capacity of the police to deal with the organized criminality in the Niger Delta was entirely exhausted, and the military took over. It is now part of the infamous record of the Nigeria police that its handling of the leaders of the Yusufiyya movement was singularly responsible for the escalation of a localized problem into the monstrous threat we now have to deal with. Because the police has failed in its primary responsibility of maintaining internal security, law and order, our entire military asset has now been deployed to do its job. This has very serious consequences over the professionalism of the military, and the long-term effect of its exposure on civil-military relations. Neither the police nor the military is involved in exercising its core responsibilities at the moment, and no nation is as exposed as we are in this situation.

So, on the face of it, there are many good reasons why the case for state police should be given serious consideration. This consideration must however be informed principally by the nature of our political system. The quality of the political leadership basically determines the manner it manages critical institutions which are available to it for governance. The cynism of  a large section of Nigerians towards the establishment of state police is well-rooted in the poor perception of the capacity of our leaders to lead with transparent commitment to public interest, honesty and even-handedness. The worst example of State government- controlled institutions is the State Independent Electoral Commission (S.I.E.C), a vital institution for engineering the entrenchment of democratic values, institutions and practices at grassroots levels and in popular culture, but which has been turned into an embarrassing parody by State Governors. Governors have turned state civil servants into organized sycophants. They treat public funds as if they are their private assets to do as they wish. State legislatures have been turned into mere chorus lines of governors, even where opposition members are in large numbers. Local Governments have been perverted by Governors; their funding and autonomy have become entirely subsumed to the whims of Governors. In short, states are increasingly looking like personal estates of governors, and it takes less than six months after elections before all political and other forms of opposition are completely silenced or obliterated. To live with police controlled and managed by these types of leaders will be a nightmare few will contemplate. Certainly, even the worst critic of the police today is likely to prefer it to a state police under Governors. So, a major weakness of the argument for state police is that it is vulnerable to the accusation that it will make policing worse, not better for Nigerians.

To allow the type of leaders we have at state levels the control of their own police will amount to the Hausa proverb which says that God does not give the man with the knife in his hands access to the meat. This is most unfortunate for a nation genuinely in need of radical reforms in the manner it organizes its federal system and its security. Only recently, it was revealed that Kano State with a population of 9million has only 8,000 police deployed to it. Virtually the entire police personnel, particularly in the north, is now mobilized against the threat of Boko Haram. This means that essential duties of the police are being sacrificed. The South-East has long had the look of an occupied zone, yet it has an endemic crime rate unheard-of in the history of this nation. The current level of deployment of police in the South East will only will be reversed at great political cost and resentment. There are huge parts of the nation where only the visible presence of heavily armed police personnel will give citizens the comfort to sleep with both eyes closed. Even Governors only venture into some parts of their States with a very large, heavily armed escort of police. Yet, crimes and massive breaches of security continue to rise. We are told we are under-policed, but there is little evidence that more police personnel will make us more secure. Finally, there will be many citizens in states which experience ethno-religions conflicts who will shudder at the mere thought of a state government-controlled police.

The fear of having state police is that we will become a police state. In truth, we are not too far from that state, what with the self-defeating belief of the administration that it can fight Boko Haram with force, and the massive deployment of police personnel into every nook and cranny where armed robbery, kidnapping or communal strife are daily occurrences. There are many attempts by State Governors to raise quasi-police formations, especially in the western states, to plug loopholes in the manner policing is handled. These do-it-yourself, which include Hisbah and similar organizations in the north merely compound the problem, and make the management of law and order and the rights of citizens that much more complicated. The real value in the suggestion of Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi for the establishment of state police is that in the short-term, government and all citizens with responsibility must explore all avenues to bring the Boko Haram insurgency to an end. Those who complain that northern elite are silent on Boko Haram should see Shinkafi’s contribution as a major attempt to address the issues. The Boko Haram insurgency is the worst case scenario for a police such as ours which is poorly managed and structured. In the long run, it reminds us that a leadership creates a police after its own image. There is a case to be made for state police, but the quality of our political leadership must be radically improved before Nigerians can feel comfortable with the idea.