Nigeria’s proposed state-police amendment has secured the constitutionally required support from state legislatures. But differing official approval figures, questions about the completion of constitutional procedures and the absence of an operational framework show why the journey from legislative approval to functioning state police services is far from complete.
ABUJA | NOVEMBER 6, 2026
Nigeria has reached a significant milestone in its longstanding debate over decentralising policing.
The proposed constitutional amendment to establish state police services has secured the support of more than the minimum 24 State Houses of Assembly required under Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution.
But that achievement does not mean state police services have been established.
As the National Assembly advances the constitutional alteration process, three questions deserve closer examination.
How many states have formally approved the amendment? What legal procedures remain? And what kind of policing system would ultimately emerge?
Those questions have become particularly important following different approval figures announced by senior legislative officials between October 29 and November 4.
They also expose a fundamental distinction: approving the constitutional basis for state policing is not the same as establishing a functioning, accountable and adequately financed police service.
For Nigerians facing serious security challenges, that distinction matters.
28, 29 or 30 States? What the Records Actually Say
On November 3, Clerk to the National Assembly Kamoru Ogunlana confirmed that his office had received and authenticated approvals from 28 state legislatures.
According to his statement, the authentication process involved examining the resolutions and accompanying Votes and Proceedings submitted by the assemblies.
The figure exceeded the constitutional requirement of 24 approving states.
However, it was not the first public indication that the proposed amendment had secured substantial state-level support.
On October 29, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele publicly reported that approximately 30 state legislatures had approved the proposal.
That announcement preceded the Clerk’s formal confirmation of 28 authenticated approvals.
During parliamentary proceedings on November 4, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu reported 29 approvals, while Bamidele gave a figure of 30.
The figures cannot therefore be explained simply as approvals increasing chronologically from 28 to 30.
Different stages of administrative reporting may help explain the figures, including legislative approval, receipt of resolutions and formal authentication.
However, the available statements do not conclusively establish that explanation.
The Clerk’s November 3 announcement provides an identifiable administrative record of 28 authenticated approvals at that date.
The subsequent statements provide additional reported figures that require reconciliation against the complete legislative record.
The public should be able to establish which assemblies approved the proposal, when their resolutions were passed, when they were transmitted and which documents were formally authenticated.
The central constitutional arithmetic remains unchanged: every reported figure exceeds the required threshold.
What still requires clarification is the precise documentary record supporting the final count.
What Exactly Has Nigeria Approved?
The proposed Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, seeks to provide a constitutional foundation for state police services alongside federal policing institutions.
This would represent a significant change from Nigeria’s existing centrally controlled policing structure.
Presently, the Nigeria Police Force operates under the federal constitutional framework.
State governments participate in security administration and support various security initiatives, but they do not independently operate constitutionally established state police services equivalent to those envisaged by the reform.
The proposed amendment seeks to change that arrangement.
However, the authority to establish state police would still need to be translated into detailed rules governing operations, financing, recruitment, accountability and institutional coordination.
A constitutional framework establishes the basis for reform. Implementing legislation determines how the resulting institutions are expected to function.
The Power Files: How the Amendment Reached This Stage
The movement towards state policing has involved several legislative stages.
The Senate passed the proposed constitutional amendment on June 24, 2026.
The House of Representatives followed on July 23.
The House proceedings included disagreement over the voting process, with members of the Minority Caucus walking out.
On September 16, the Clerk transmitted the amendment to the 36 state legislatures for consideration.
The assemblies were initially requested to communicate their decisions within 30 days.
That administrative response period ended on October 15.
On October 23, the Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill reported that 24 state legislatures had endorsed the amendment.
That announcement indicated that the required state-level constitutional threshold had been reached.
Bamidele’s October 29 statement subsequently referred to approximately 30 approvals.
The Clerk’s November 3 statement formally authenticated 28.
On November 4, lawmakers publicly reported figures of 29 and 30.
The Senate also announced November 15 as an additional deadline for outstanding state legislatures to communicate their positions.
THE LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| June 24, 2026 | Senate passes proposed constitutional amendment |
| July 23, 2026 | House of Representatives approves the proposal |
| September 16, 2026 | Amendment transmitted to 36 state legislatures |
| October 15, 2026 | Initial administrative response period expires |
| October 23, 2026 | Presidential Working Group reports 24 state approvals |
| October 29, 2026 | Senate Leader reports approximately 30 approvals |
| November 3, 2026 | Clerk confirms 28 authenticated approvals |
| November 4, 2026 | Deputy Speaker reports 29; Senate Leader reports 30 |
| November 15, 2026 | Announced deadline for outstanding state responses |
The final entry represents a future procedural deadline rather than a completed legislative event.
Six States Were Listed as Outstanding — But What Does That Mean?
During the November 4 parliamentary proceedings, six states were identified as outstanding in the National Assembly’s reporting process.
They were Abia, Benue, Cross River, Kano, Niger and Oyo.
However, this designation requires careful interpretation.
An assembly may approve a constitutional amendment without its resolution immediately appearing in the National Assembly’s authenticated records.
A distinction must therefore be maintained between the decision taken by a state legislature and the subsequent transmission and processing of that decision.
There have also been developments concerning individual states.
Reporting published on November 5 indicated that Kano had already dispatched its response to the National Assembly.
Deputy Senate President Jibrin Barau reportedly informed senators that the document was expected to arrive shortly.
That report did not establish that the National Assembly had formally received and authenticated Kano’s response.
Consequently, the November 4 list should not be presented as a definitive statement that all six legislatures had rejected the proposal or had taken no action.
For public accountability, the final legislative record should distinguish four separate events:
Consideration of the proposal, legislative approval or rejection, transmission of the resolution, and authentication by the Clerk.
Without those distinctions, an administrative reporting delay could be mistaken for a legislative decision.
The November 15 deadline provides an opportunity for the remaining documentary positions to be clarified.
Has the Amendment Been Sent to President Tinubu?
This is another question requiring a precise institutional record.
On November 3, the Clerk announced that administrative arrangements were being undertaken to facilitate transmission of the amendment to President Bola Tinubu.
Reports of the November 4 House proceedings subsequently attributed to Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu a statement that the Clerk had been directed to transmit the amendment.
A November 5 report in The Guardian attributed to Kalu the stronger assertion that the document had already been forwarded.
These accounts establish that senior legislative officials discussed both intended and reportedly completed transmission.
However, the evidence examined for this report does not include an independently authenticated acknowledgment from the Presidency confirming receipt of the final constitutional alteration instrument.
Nor does it establish that President Tinubu has signed the amendment.
An instruction to transmit, a public statement that transmission has occurred and documentary confirmation of presidential receipt are distinct matters.
That distinction must be maintained in reporting the amendment’s progress.
Does Constitutional Alteration Require Presidential Assent?
There is also a legal issue concerning the constitutional amendment procedure.
The National Assembly’s published guidance on constitutional alteration states that presidential assent is not required under Section 9 of the Constitution.
However, the Clerk’s November 3 statement described administrative preparations to transmit the amendment for presidential assent in accordance with the Acts Authentication Act.
The Presidential Working Group has also referred to presidential assent in describing the anticipated process.
These statements provide different institutional descriptions of the procedure.
They do not, by themselves, establish a legal dispute or determine which interpretation should govern.
A definitive legal explanation would require examination of the constitutional provisions, applicable judicial authorities and statutory authentication requirements.
IDNN has not independently established the final legal position on that question.
Accordingly, this report does not treat presidential assent as either conclusively mandatory or conclusively unnecessary.
The established development is that the required state-legislature approval threshold has been crossed.
Documentary confirmation of the completion of the applicable constitutional process remains an important subject for further reporting.
What Would State Police Actually Look Like?
The proposed reform envisages a dual policing framework involving federal and state police institutions.
Published descriptions of the amendment indicate that governors would appoint commissioners of state police, subject to confirmation by their respective Houses of Assembly.
The proposed arrangements also raise questions concerning operational direction, institutional independence and the relationship between federal and state authorities.
But summaries of the constitutional amendment cannot substitute for examining its authenticated text.
The operational details also depend on implementing legislation.
On October 20, the Presidency announced that the Presidential Working Group had submitted a draft National Policing Bill, 2026, and 29 consequential amendment bills to the Federal Ministry of Justice for legislative drafting review.
The documents had been submitted on October 19.
The ministry was expected to return the reviewed drafts by October 30.
The records examined for this report do not establish that the complete implementing package had subsequently been enacted.
That means the proposed operational framework remains a separate and important subject of legislative scrutiny.
CONSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL VERSUS IMPLEMENTATION
| Issue | Constitutional proposal | Further requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Policing structure | Basis for federal and state services | Operational boundaries |
| State authority | Proposed state-level policing powers | Final command and oversight rules |
| Police leadership | Reported appointment framework | Independence and accountability safeguards |
| Jurisdiction | Decentralised policing arrangement | Coordination procedures |
| Funding | Basis for establishing institutions | Budgets and sustainable financing |
| Recruitment | Framework for state police services | Training and professional standards |
| Accountability | Recognition of policing institutions | Complaints and independent review |
| Implementation | Constitutional reform process | Enabling laws, personnel and commencement |
The comparison explains the distinction between the reported constitutional proposal and operational arrangements requiring further verification. It is not a substitute for an authenticated clause-by-clause review of the final legislation.
Five Questions Nigeria Cannot Afford to Ignore
1. Who Would Control State Police?
The power to appoint police leadership is not necessarily the same as authority over operational decisions.
The final legal framework must clarify these responsibilities and establish appropriate safeguards against misuse of policing powers.
2. Who Would Pay?
State governments have different financial capacities.
A new policing system would introduce substantial expenditure involving recruitment, training, infrastructure, equipment, salaries and operational logistics.
The proposed financing arrangements require careful examination.
3. Who Would Investigate Misconduct?
Independent complaints mechanisms, disciplinary procedures and effective legal remedies are essential considerations.
The public needs to know how allegations involving state police personnel would be investigated and resolved.
4. What Happens When Federal and State Jurisdictions Overlap?
Security operations regularly cross administrative boundaries.
A dual policing system requires clear rules covering investigative authority, intelligence sharing, emergencies and institutional cooperation.
5. When Would State Police Become Operational?
Constitutional approval does not automatically establish police stations, recruit officers or create operational command structures.
Implementation would require further legal, administrative and financial arrangements.
No confirmed nationwide commencement date has been established in the records examined.
Beyond the Approval Figures
Nigeria’s proposed state-police amendment has moved beyond general political advocacy into an advanced constitutional process.
The state-legislature approval threshold has been reached according to the National Assembly’s formal confirmation.
That represents a significant legislative development.
But the number of approving states cannot establish whether the eventual system will improve security, protect citizens’ rights or operate sustainably.
Those questions depend on the institutions created and the safeguards governing them.
The final legislative records, applicable constitutional procedures and implementing legislation therefore deserve continued examination.
For Nigerians, the central issue is not simply whether state police services will exist.
It is whether the proposed institutions will be adequately financed, professionally administered, lawfully governed and accountable to the public.
Nigeria has reached an important stage in approving the proposed reform. The harder questions concern how it would work.
Those questions deserve answers as the country moves towards implementation.
Follow IDNN’s continuing investigation into the decisions, documents and institutions shaping Nigeria’s policing reform.
IDNN — Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
