Titus Eleweke South East Editor, Sept 18, 2026
ANAMBRA — Anambra State-born human rights lawyer and lead counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has expressed reservations about the proposed establishment of State Police in Nigeria, warning that a decentralised policing system could become vulnerable to abuse if powerful individuals are allowed to exercise informal control over publicly funded security structures.
Ejiofor raised the concerns in his latest “Midweek Musings,” titled: “State Police: A Necessary Instrument for Effective Local Policing — Or a Potential Weapon in the Hands of the Powerful? Anambra as a Case Study: The Udo Ga-Achị Experience.”
Using Anambra State’s Homeland Security framework as a case study, Ejiofor said the state’s establishment of the Homeland Security structure under the Anambra State Homeland Security Law 2025, with Agụnechemba and Operation Udo Ga-Achị designed to complement conventional security agencies, provides a useful illustration of both the promise and potential dangers associated with decentralised policing.
According to him, the official conception of the framework is undoubtedly security-driven, with the stated objective of combating criminality and protecting communities.
He, however, cautioned that even a law enacted for a noble purpose could produce disturbing consequences if the instruments created under it were diverted from their statutory responsibilities.
“My concern, therefore, is not directed at the legitimate objective of strengthening security.
It is about what happens when a publicly funded security apparatus is converted into a private instrument for settling scores, intimidating perceived opponents, pursuing vendettas or accomplishing assignments which the ordinary machinery of law enforcement would not undertake,” he said.
Ejiofor noted that the debate over the establishment of State Police had persisted in Nigeria for years and had assumed renewed significance as the country moved towards a more decentralised policing architecture.
He acknowledged that the argument in favour of State Police was compelling, particularly because policing could become more effective when security personnel understood the communities, people, terrain and peculiar security challenges within which they operated.
He, however, argued that another dimension of the debate deserved considerably greater attention.
According to him, the greatest danger may not necessarily come directly from state governors but from individuals who operate within the shadows of government, including political power brokers, financiers, associates and other influential persons who may consider themselves sufficiently close to government to operate beyond scrutiny, accountability or restraint.
“And therein lies the real cause for concern,”
. “The uncomfortable question is not merely: Can a Governor abuse State Police? The more disturbing question is: What happens when persons who wield enormous influence over a State Government acquire informal access to, or influence over, a security structure established with public resources?” Ejiofor said.
He warned that such a situation could expose the architecture of State Police to serious vulnerabilities.
Anambra as a Case Study
Ejiofor again pointed to Anambra State’s Homeland Security framework, established under the Anambra State Homeland Security Law 2025, with Agụnechemba and Operation Udo Ga-Achị intended to complement conventional security agencies.
While acknowledging that the framework was officially conceived as a security mechanism aimed at combating criminality and protecting communities, he stressed that the effectiveness of any security law depended largely on whether the powers it created remained within their statutory boundaries.
“But a noble law can produce disturbing consequences when its instruments are diverted from their statutory purpose,” he stated.
He reiterated that his concern was not about undermining legitimate efforts to strengthen security but about the possibility of public security institutions being transformed into instruments for private interests.
According to him, a security operative who acts on the instruction of a private individual rather than within the confines of the law ceases, in effect, to be merely performing a legitimate security function and risks becoming an instrument of private power while wearing the uniform of public authority.
“According to him, that is precisely where the danger lies.”
Ejiofor observed that a governor might be occupied with the enormous responsibilities of governing a state and could reasonably expect the security architecture established under the administration to operate within the law and under appropriate supervision.
However, he warned that if influential individuals around government began exercising informal command over such structures, the constitutional and legal safeguards surrounding the use of coercive power could become dangerously blurred.
The human rights lawyer described the possible consequence as “government security without governmental accountability.”
He said such a development would represent a frightening contradiction.
“Indeed, what could be more absurd than a situation in which a citizen cannot tell whether a security operative is acting pursuant to lawful governmental authority or merely responding to the wishes of an individual who happens to have the right telephone number?” he asked.
Concerns Over Alleged Abuses
Ejiofor said the danger was not merely theoretical, pointing to what he described as public concerns about alleged abuses involving state-backed security structures in Anambra.
He referred to allegations of unlawful arrests, brutality and the use of security operatives in circumstances connected with private disputes.
He stressed that if Nigeria eventually establishes State Police, the safeguards put in place must go beyond simply preventing governors from deploying police personnel against political opponents.
According to him, the legal framework must also anticipate the subtler danger posed by powerful individuals operating within the orbit of government and attempting to convert public security institutions into private instruments of influence.
“And, most importantly, no individual, however wealthy, politically influential or close to government, should possess an unofficial security command,” .
“Public security must remain public. A security uniform must never become a badge of private authority. A government vehicle must never become a mobile instrument of personal vendetta.”he said.
Ejiofor warned that failure to establish effective safeguards could ultimately produce an unintended consequence in which the machinery of coercion was brought closer to powerful individuals rather than security being brought closer to ordinary citizens.
“Otherwise, we may wake up one morning to discover that the State Police we created to bring security closer to the people has merely brought the machinery of coercion closer to the powerful. That would be a tragic irony,” he said.
For Ejiofor, the ultimate test of State Police should not simply be its ability to arrest criminals or respond to security threats.
Rather, he argued that its deeper test would be whether security personnel could resist unlawful instructions from powerful individuals.
“The greatest test of State Police will therefore not be how efficiently it can arrest a criminal. It will be how faithfully it can resist the instruction of a powerful person when that instruction is unlawful,” he stated.
He warned that if security personnel became more fearful of influential individuals than of the law itself, Nigeria would not have achieved meaningful decentralisation of policing.
“For if security personnel become more frightened of the influential individual behind them than of the law before them, then we have not decentralised policing; we have merely decentralised impunity.
“And that, surely, is not the State Police Nigerians are asking for.” Ejiofor said.
Ejiofor disclosed that his concerns extend specifically to developments in parts of Anambra State, including his home community of Oraifite, promising to examine the issues more closely in subsequent editions of his Midweek Musings.
He said his intention was not to undermine legitimate security operations but to insist that every security institution established through public authority and funded with public resources must remain subject to the law.
“More specifically, I have serious concerns about what may be happening in parts of my own Anambra State, including my home community of Oraifite,”
“I shall, in subsequent editions, examine these concerns more closely and place the issues before the public conscience, not to undermine legitimate security operations, but to insist that every security institution created with public authority and public resources must remain subject to the law.” he said.
He stressed that the true measure of a security institution should not be the amount of fear it can generate but the level of public confidence it can command.
“Because ultimately, the real measure of a security institution is not the fear it can inspire, but the confidence it can command.
“And any security architecture that protects the powerful while frightening the powerless has already lost the very essence of public security,” he added.
