The latest push comes amid growing concerns over worsening insecurity across several parts of the country, including terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal conflicts and violent crimes, which have continued to test the capacity of Nigeria’s centrally controlled policing structure.

A major outcome of the meeting was the proposal for greater constitutional recognition of governors’ roles in coordinating security operations within their states.

According to the report, participants reviewed legislative provisions currently under consideration, particularly those relating to governors’ authority in security matters.

“The meeting also reviewed provisions currently under legislative consideration, particularly clauses relating to the authority of governors in directing security operations within their states,” the report stated.

It added that delegates stressed “the importance of recognising the constitutional role of governors in coordinating security matters within their states while establishing safeguards for professionalism, accountability and operational independence.”

The proposal is expected to reignite debate over the powers of governors in security administration, an issue that has remained contentious since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999.

Although governors are commonly referred to as the chief security officers of their states, they currently exercise limited direct control over police operations because the Nigeria Police Force remains under federal command.

The governors’ latest recommendations come at a crucial moment in the state police debate, following significant progress recorded by the National Assembly on constitutional amendments aimed at decentralising policing.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved constitutional amendment proposals seeking to establish state police as part of broader efforts to reform Nigeria’s security architecture and address persistent security challenges across the country.

The amendment seeks to alter relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution to create a dual policing structure comprising Federal Police Services and State Police Services, with states empowered to establish their own police formations through legislation passed by their respective Houses of Assembly.

The proposal is widely regarded as one of the most significant security reforms since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999, and represents the furthest the country has moved toward constitutional recognition of state police after years of failed attempts.

The agitation for state police dates back decades but gained momentum during successive waves of insecurity, including militancy in the Niger Delta, Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, farmer-herder clashes in the North-Central, and rising incidents of kidnapping across the country.

The issue featured prominently at the 2014 National Conference, where delegates recommended the establishment of state police as part of broader constitutional restructuring measures.

Over the years, governors, constitutional lawyers, retired security chiefs, traditional rulers and civil society groups have argued that Nigeria’s federal structure is incompatible with a policing system controlled exclusively from Abuja.

The push intensified further following the emergence of regional security outfits such as Amotekun in the South-West, Ebube Agu in parts of the South-East, and various community-based security arrangements in northern states.

Supporters have argued that these initiatives demonstrate the growing demand for local security structures capable of complementing federal law enforcement agencies and responding more rapidly to threats within communities.

Opponents, however, have consistently warned that state police could be vulnerable to political manipulation and abuse by state governments, particularly during elections and periods of political tension.

Many of those concerns appear to have informed the recommendations emerging from the NGF meeting, which place considerable emphasis on accountability, oversight, and operational independence.

The report also outlined a proposed policing model based on cooperative federalism.

According to the document, discussions centred on “developing a policing structure rooted in cooperative federalism, where federal and state police institutions operate within clearly defined constitutional and statutory jurisdictions.”

Under the proposed arrangement, the Federal Police Service would retain responsibility for crimes considered national in scope.

The report stated, “Under the proposed framework, the Federal Police Service would retain exclusive responsibility for offences of national significance, including terrorism, treason, narcotics-related crimes and interstate criminal activities.”

State Police Services, however, would be empowered to tackle offences falling within their constitutional jurisdictions.

The report added, “State Police Services would be empowered to prevent, investigate and support the prosecution of offences within their constitutionally assigned jurisdiction, particularly offences created under state laws.”

The proposal effectively seeks to establish a constitutional division of responsibilities between federal and state policing institutions, leaving matters such as terrorism, treason and interstate crimes within federal jurisdiction while assigning local law enforcement functions to state police formations.