Decolonising Policing in Nigeria: State-Level Policing, Relational Accountability and the Amotekun Model
Introduction
Debates surrounding the introduction of state-level policing in Nigeria have intensified in response to persistent insecurity and growing dissatisfaction with the centralised Nigeria Police Force. Supporters argue that decentralising policing would improve responsiveness to local security challenges, while opponents warn that state police could become instruments of political repression in the hands of governors. Much of this debate, however, assumes that accountability is principally a matter of institutional design—that creating independent complaints bodies, statutory oversight mechanisms and constitutional safeguards will sufficiently prevent abuses of power.
This paper argues that such an approach is incomplete. While structural accountability remains indispensable, it is unlikely on its own to transform policing in Nigeria. From a decolonial perspective, accountability is not only institutional but relational. It is produced through the quality of relationships between policing institutions and the communities they serve. Consequently, this paper argues that strengthening community relations, representative leadership and cultural cohesion should be viewed as equally important dimensions of accountability. The Amotekun model, established across the South-West of Nigeria through state legislation in 2020, provides a valuable illustration of how local legitimacy may complement formal oversight in advancing more accountable forms of state-level policing.
Colonial Legacies and the Limits of Centralised Policing
Nigeria inherited a policing system designed during the colonial period to maintain order and protect the interests of the colonial administration rather than to serve local communities. The centralisation of policing reflected colonial priorities of territorial control, taxation and political authority. Although Nigeria has undergone constitutional and democratic reforms since independence, many characteristics of colonial policing remain evident. Public perceptions of excessive force, arbitrary detention, extortion and distrust continue to characterise relationships between citizens and the police.
The #EndSARS protests demonstrated that these concerns are systemic rather than isolated incidents. They exposed widespread dissatisfaction with police brutality and highlighted the limited effectiveness of existing accountability mechanisms. Despite constitutional protections, police regulations and oversight institutions, abuses persisted because accountability often remained formal rather than meaningful. The lesson is clear: institutional safeguards alone do not necessarily generate public trust or constrain abusive policing practices.
The Debate on State-Level Policing
Supporters of state policing argue that Nigeria’s size, diversity and complex security environment require more localised policing structures. Officers recruited from local communities are more likely to understand local languages, geography, social networks and
patterns of conflict. They may therefore be better positioned to gather intelligence, prevent crime and resolve disputes.
Opponents, however, raise equally compelling concerns. Governors may exploit state police for partisan purposes, intimidate political opponents or suppress dissent. States with limited financial resources may struggle to maintain professional policing standards, while differences in institutional capacity could produce unequal protection of citizens’ rights across the federation.
These concerns are legitimate and should not be dismissed. Yet they largely conceive accountability in structural terms. Proposed solutions typically include independent police service commissions, legislative oversight, judicial review and statutory complaints mechanisms. While these reforms are essential, they overlook another equally significant dimension of accountability.
Beyond Structural Accountability: Towards Relational Accountability
The debate over state policing has focused predominantly on what may be termed structural accountability—the formal institutions, legal rules and oversight mechanisms designed to regulate police conduct. Structural accountability includes constitutional protections, independent complaints bodies, judicial supervision, legislative oversight and disciplinary procedures. These institutions establish the legal framework within which police power should be exercised.
However, decolonising policing requires attention to a second dimension: relational accountability.
Relational accountability refers to the social relationships through which police legitimacy is continually earned, maintained and contested. Rather than viewing accountability solely as a legal process activated after misconduct occurs, relational accountability recognises that policing is also shaped by trust, familiarity, cultural understanding and sustained engagement with communities. Officers embedded within the communities they serve are subject not only to legal scrutiny but also to ongoing social expectations regarding fairness, respect and legitimacy.
This perspective does not suggest that community trust replaces legal accountability. Rather, it argues that structural and relational accountability are mutually reinforcing. Formal institutions may establish standards of conduct, but communities often determine whether those standards are meaningful in practice. Without public trust, even well-designed oversight institutions may struggle to hold policing organisations accountable.
The Amotekun Model
The Western Nigeria Security Network, commonly known as Amotekun, provides an important example of localised security governance. Established through separate legislation enacted by the six South-West states in 2020, Amotekun was created to respond to increasing insecurity, including kidnapping, armed robbery and rural banditry. Although it does not constitute a constitutionally recognised state police force, it performs significant policing and security functions alongside federal agencies.
The significance of the Amotekun model extends beyond its organisational structure. Its principal contribution lies in demonstrating how local knowledge, cultural familiarity and community participation can strengthen security provision. Many operatives possess intimate knowledge of local geography, languages, customs and traditional authority structures. Such familiarity enhances intelligence gathering, facilitates communication and may reduce the social distance that has historically characterised policing in Nigeria.
Importantly, Amotekun illustrates that legitimacy may derive not only from statutory authority but also from cultural embeddedness. Communities are often more willing to cooperate with security personnel whom they perceive as understanding their social realities and sharing their values. In this respect, the Amotekun model aligns with broader decolonial arguments that security institutions should derive legitimacy from the communities they serve rather than primarily from the state.
Nevertheless, recognising Amotekun as a model does not require overlooking its limitations. Like all policing institutions, it remains vulnerable to political influence, inconsistent standards, resource constraints and potential human rights abuses. Cultural proximity alone cannot guarantee impartiality or protect minority groups from discrimination. Local institutions may reproduce existing social hierarchies unless appropriate safeguards exist. The value of the Amotekun model therefore lies not in presenting a complete solution but in demonstrating that local legitimacy should be regarded as an essential component of accountable policing.
Implications for State-Level Policing
If Nigeria proceeds with the establishment of state police, reform should extend beyond constitutional amendments and institutional restructuring. Decentralisation alone will not decolonise policing if the underlying relationship between police and communities remains unchanged.
A decolonial approach would integrate structural and relational accountability.
Structural accountability would continue to require independent complaints commissions, judicial oversight, legislative scrutiny, transparent recruitment processes, public reporting of misconduct, enforceable human rights standards and clear limitations on executive influence.
Relational accountability would require institutionalised community participation in policing priorities, representative leadership reflecting the diversity of each state, culturally competent recruitment and training, and sustained partnerships between policing institutions, traditional authorities, civil society organisations, youth organisations and women’s groups. These mechanisms encourage accountability before misconduct occurs by embedding police legitimacy within the communities they serve.
Rather than viewing these approaches as competing models, they should be understood as complementary. Structural accountability constrains police power through law, while relational accountability strengthens the social legitimacy necessary for those legal constraints to function effectively.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding state-level policing in Nigeria has frequently been framed as a constitutional question concerning the allocation of policing powers between federal and state governments. This paper has argued that such a framing is insufficient. Decolonising policing requires transforming not only institutional arrangements but also the relationship between policing institutions and the communities they serve.
The Amotekun model demonstrates that community engagement, cultural familiarity and representative leadership can contribute meaningfully to accountable policing by strengthening public legitimacy and reducing the distance between security providers and citizens. These characteristics should not be regarded as alternatives to formal accountability mechanisms but as complementary dimensions of a broader accountability framework.
Accordingly, future state police reforms should move beyond an exclusive focus on institutional architecture. A decolonised model of policing in Nigeria will depend upon integrating structural accountability—through constitutional safeguards, independent oversight and legal regulation—with relational accountability, grounded in trust, community participation and cultural legitimacy. Only by combining these dimensions can state-level policing move beyond reproducing colonial patterns of coercion and instead develop as a genuinely democratic public institution.
Dr Sonia Warner