Ambrose Igboke, a public affairs and social analyst, has said state policing is a critical intervention for security challenges currently bedeviling the country.

Mr Igboke said this on Saturday in Abuja while reacting to President Bola Tinubu and state governors agreement on establishment of state police to curb the nation’s security challenge.

The analyst, who said that constitutionally, state governors were the chief security officers, however, noted that they were not in charge of any security apparatus.

According to him, when crime happened, nobody was actually held responsible “because you transfer somebody from Borno State as Police DPO in charge of Nsukka in Enugu and what does he know”.

He described this as a disconnect with police architecture and crime threat in the country.

“Every crime is local and policing is not local that is already a paradox that cannot be allowed to stand, where a central police command is ruling a population of over 200 million people is not going to be sustainable.

“Centralised policing as currently practised in Nigeria is no more effective in tackling modern insecurity trends. All crimes are local, so the solutions to crimes should be local.

“The governor is the Chief Security Officer of the state but does not control any security agency. This is an aberration that will be corrected with state police.

“As an elected public officer, the governor is accountable to his people and will be held liable for security breaches if only he/she is in charge of policing in the state.”

Mr Igboke said every elected governor was responsible to the citizens, being the chief security officer, according to the constitution, and should be liable for any crime committed within his vicinity.

“This time around, the governor cannot be held accountable because he is not in charge of the Commissioner of Police, Director of SSS and Civil Defence Commander, so he is handicapped in security matters concerning the state.

”So, a state governor should not be left incapacitated like that in a modern society; he should have some form of control, especially when the constitution has said that he is the chief security officer of the state.

“He should truly be the chief security officer of the state so that crime can be nipped in the bud; insecurities can be tackled locally because every crime is local.

“Before an outsider comes to commit a crime in a place, it means there are some collaborators within and only the collaborators know the outsider. “

On the abuse of such power by state governors, he advised that the law establishing state police should take into consideration measures of controlling unwholesome behaviours by governors. 

(NAN)