Professor Uwasomba’s reminder: Nigeria once had community-rooted policing

By Okechukwu Nwanguma

The ongoing national debate over the establishment of state police continues to generate passionate arguments on all sides.

While many Nigerians see decentralised policing as a necessary response to rising insecurity, others urge caution, warning that structural reforms alone cannot resolve the deeper governance and institutional challenges affecting policing in the country.

Following the publication of my article, “State Police Debate: Lessons from Professor Etannibi Alemika,” Professor Chijioke Uwasomba of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, shared reflections that offer a valuable historical perspective on how policing once functioned in Nigeria. His comments, informed by his experience as the son of a police officer who served during what many remember as the more professional era of the Nigerian Police, remind us that Nigeria once had a policing system that was deeply rooted in local communities.

Professor Uwasomba noted that even within the existing structure of the Nigeria Police Force, policing historically operated along both federal and community lines. The structure flowed from village out-stations and small police posts through divisional headquarters at the local level, up to Local Government Area commands supervised by senior officers under state police commands headed by Commissioners of Police.

In practice, most policing engagements were local. Matters that could not be resolved at the local level were escalated through a clearly defined hierarchy within the Force. This system ensured that communities had, accessible policing presence while maintaining national coordination and professional command structures.

He also recalled that the Nigerian Police once possessed one of the most organised institutional communication systems in the country. Operational instructions and intelligence were transmitted through an efficient signalling system linking units across the federation. With modern technology, such internal communication networks could be even more effective today.

According to him, the decline of the Nigerian Police cannot be understood without acknowledging the impact of prolonged military rule, which disrupted institutional autonomy, weakened professional culture, and eroded the discipline that once characterised the Force. In many ways, the police became subordinated to a militarised security philosophy that undermined their original civilian policing ethos.

Professor Uwasomba also highlighted how the welfare and living conditions of officers were once more structured and regulated. Police barracks were organised environments subject to periodic inspections that ensured acceptable living standards for officers and their families. Housing arrangements followed a clear progression according to rank, reflecting the hierarchy and discipline within the Force.

Interestingly, the policing model also encouraged community integration. Many officers lived outside the barracks among civilians, sometimes without their neighbours even knowing they were police officers. This arrangement strengthened intelligence gathering and fostered, closer understanding between the police and the communities they served.

Recruitment and training also combined local and national elements. Recruits were often drawn from their regions and trained in zonal training colleges – such as the well-known training facility at Oji River – while federal recruitment and specialised units operated alongside these structures. The result was a hybrid system that blended community familiarity with national coordination.

Professor Uwasomba also recalled that the quality of police training was once remarkably strong. Regular refresher courses were organised to upgrade officers’ knowledge and operational capacities. Police prosecutors, often without formal legal degrees, were known to competently face trained lawyers in court and, in many cases, outperformed them through practical experience and mastery of criminal procedure.

He pointed out that even with modest educational qualifications, officers could rise through the ranks because of the strength of professional training within the Force. In those days, a person with a Standard Six education could join the police and, through training and discipline, develop the competence required for higher responsibilities. This institutional culture of professional development explains how officers such as Etim Inyang, who began with a Primary School Certificate, eventually rose to become Inspector-General of Police.

According to Professor Uwasomba, the foundational training of a constable was so comprehensive that within six months of deployment to a new area, an officer was expected to understand the environment, including the local language, customs, and social dynamics.

This capacity for rapid community adaptation reinforced the police’s role as a locally embedded yet nationally coordinated institution.

In his words, every police officer was regarded as a “federal citizen” – someone who belonged to the entire nation rather than to any narrow regional or political authority. The Nigeria Police Force thus evolved into one of the most genuinely national institutions in the country.

For this reason, Professor Uwasomba warns that Nigeria must tread carefully in the current debate on state police. While policing reforms are necessary, he argues that dismantling or fragmenting a national institution without addressing deeper governance issues could create new risks.

He also raises a broader concern about the motivations sometimes driving calls for structural reforms. According to him, the danger is that instead of pursuing thoughtful restructuring of the federation – such as strengthening regional governance structures already informally recognised in Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones – there may be attempts to fragment key federal institutions in ways that simply expand the power of political elites.

If policing powers are devolved without strong safeguards, such reforms could potentially enable some political actors to use security institutions to settle political scores, suppress dissent, or consolidate personal authority at the state level.

Professor Uwasomba’s reflections, therefore, complement the caution offered by Professor Etannibi Alemika: policing reforms must be grounded in democratic accountability and institutional integrity, not simply in the multiplication of armed security agencies.

Nigeria’s insecurity crisis demands serious solutions. But the search for those solutions must be informed not only by contemporary frustrations but also by historical experience.

Before rushing to create new policing structures, Nigeria may need to reflect on the lessons from a time when policing – though imperfect – was more closely connected to communities, more disciplined internally, and more professionally organised.

Rebuilding those values may ultimately be just as important as any constitutional reform introducing state police.

Only by combining institutional renewal with thoughtful structural reform can Nigeria build a policing system capable of protecting both the security and the freedoms of its citizens.