The Movement for Improved Welfare for Nigeria Police Force (MIWNPF) has called on President Bola Tinubu to withhold assent to the controversial State Police Bill, alleging that the National Assembly passed the proposed legislation without public debate, stakeholder engagement, or input from leading civil society organisations that have long championed police reform and citizens’ security in Nigeria.

In a press statement dated August 4, 2026, and signed by its National Coordinator, Toyin Raheem Prince, the group described the process leading to the passage of the bill as “an affront to over 200 million Nigerians,” insisting that a law with far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s security architecture should not have been enacted without extensive public participation.

According to MIWNPF, the proposed legislation is expected to be transmitted to President Tinubu for presidential assent, but the organisation urged the President to reject the bill until Nigerians and relevant stakeholders are given an opportunity to debate its provisions.

The statement read, “The Movement for Improved Welfare for Nigeria Police Force (MIWNPF) is aware that a bill for the creation of state police is about to be transmitted to Mr President by the National Assembly.

“We are alarmed that this Bill was processed with no public debate, no stakeholder engagement, and no input from the very organisations that have spent years working on police reform and citizens’ security in Nigeria.”

The organisation said it was excluded from the legislative process alongside several prominent civil society groups actively involved in security sector reforms.

Among the organisations listed were the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAC), Network on Police Reform in Nigeria (NOPRIN), CLEEN Foundation, Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), Campaign for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (CCHR), Centre for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), Centre for People’s Defence (CPD), Campaign for Democracy and Justice (CDJ), United Action for Democracy (UAD), Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Coalition Against Corruption and Bad Governance (CACOBAG), Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM), Nigeria Democratic Security Coalition (CNDSRC), and several others.

The group questioned why such organisations were not invited to make submissions before lawmakers.

“No public hearing was called. How can a law that will affect the security architecture of over 200 million Nigerians be passed in this manner?” the group asked.

MIWNPF argued that Nigeria is currently not prepared for the establishment of state police, warning that the proposed structure could easily be abused by state governors for political purposes.

It stated that, given Nigeria’s current political environment, state police could become instruments for intimidating opposition figures, manipulating elections, and settling political disputes.

“Risk of Political Misuse. In our current political climate, state police will become a tool in the hands of sitting governors to intimidate opponents, rig elections, and settle political scores. We have already seen the misuse of existing state-backed security outfits,” the organisation stated.

The group also warned that introducing another policing structure would worsen confusion within Nigeria’s already fragmented internal security framework.

It noted that various regional and state-backed security outfits already exist across the country, including the Western Nigeria Security Network (Amotekun) in the South-West, the Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), Hisbah religious police operating in Kano, Jigawa, Katsina, Zamfara and other northern states, the Ebubeagu Security Network in the South-East, as well as numerous community policing and vigilante groups.

According to the organisation, creating state police without first reforming and harmonising these existing structures would breed rivalry, duplication of responsibilities, and abuse of power.

The group also questioned the practical relevance of establishing state police when each state already has a Commissioner of Police appointed to oversee federal policing operations.

“Today, every state has a Commissioner of Police (CP) as the head of the federal police in the state. If we now create ‘State Police’ with a different head by another name, what changes? The structure remains the same, but accountability becomes weaker. Is that true federalism?” MIWNPF queried.

Drawing comparisons with other countries, MIWNPF argued that successful state policing systems operate within nations that possess stronger democratic institutions, independent judicial systems, autonomous local governments, and adequate funding.

The organisation cited the United States and Germany as examples of countries where decentralised policing works because institutional safeguards are firmly established.

Meanwhile, it pointed to Ghana, Rwanda and Kenya, where largely centralised policing systems have recorded significant reform successes.

According to the group, Nigeria’s policing crisis stems not from centralisation but from chronic underfunding, poor welfare, inadequate equipment, weak accountability mechanisms, and political interference.

Rather than creating state police, MIWNPF called for comprehensive reforms of the Nigeria Police Force, including increased funding, procurement of modern operational equipment such as patrol vehicles, forensic laboratories, body cameras and ICT infrastructure.

The group also demanded improved life assurance, health insurance, pensions, welfare packages, training programmes, psychological support for officers, merit-based postings, and an end to political interference in policing.

“Until these are fixed, creating state police is putting the cart before the horse,” the organisation said.

MIWNPF further criticised the manner in which the National Assembly handled the legislation, alleging that Nigerians no longer have confidence in the parliament led by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

The group accused lawmakers of imposing the legislation without democratic consultation.

“The National Assembly cannot pass a Bill of this magnitude without hearing Nigerians. The Senate where ‘ayes have it’ even when the ‘nay’ was as loud as thunder, and the ‘aye’ as faint as a whisper in a crowded market. That is not democracy. That is imposition,” they said.

It added that true federalism should not be equated with the creation of separate state police forces, arguing instead that genuine federalism requires devolution of powers accompanied by responsibility, financial autonomy, and effective oversight mechanisms.

The organisation therefore made three demands.

It urged President Tinubu to withhold assent to the State Police Bill.

The organisation called on the National Assembly to organise a national public debate or town hall meeting on policing in Nigeria, with MIWNPF and all listed civil society organisations invited to participate.

MIWNPF urged the Federal Government to prioritise full implementation of the Nigeria Police Act 2020 by adequately funding and equipping the Nigeria Police Force, improving officers’ welfare, and carrying out comprehensive police reforms before considering any restructuring of the country’s policing system.

“Nigeria deserves security that protects the people, not security that protects politicians,” they added.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has insisted that its temporary restriction on an Osun State Government bank account was lawful and backed by provisions of the EFCC Act and the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

Speaking on Arise Television on Thursday, EFCC spokesperson and Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, rejected claims by the Osun State Government and the Nigerian Bar Association that the commission required a court order before placing the restriction.

According to him, the decision followed what the agency described as suspicious transactions on the account over the past week.

“As we indicated in the statement released by the Commission, we took that step to preserve the account of the Osun State Government.

“We observed in the past one week that activities on that account looked suspicious, and based on the mandate of the Commission, we took the step of placing a restriction on that account to preserve it,” he said.

Uwujaren clarified that the action affected only one account and did not amount to a freeze on all Osun State accounts.

“That restriction order does not mean that all the accounts of Osun State have been frozen. No. It is just a targeted restriction on one account of the Osun State Government,” he said.

He explained that the commission noticed multiple transfers from the account to several corporate entities within a short period, prompting the intervention.

“The essence, like I said, is just to preserve that account because we observed suspicious activities on that account in terms of the transfer of funds to a number of entities within one week.

“So we had to take that decision to place a restriction on that account, not minding the fact that there is an election process in place,” he said.

The EFCC spokesman argued that the agency would have been criticised if it had failed to act while public funds were allegedly being moved.

“We have the responsibility under the law to do so because if we don’t take that step and, for instance, funds are looted from the account of the Osun State Government, I’m sure the Nigerian public will also ask, ‘Where was the EFCC when those funds were being moved?’” he said.

Uwujaren maintained that the state government still had access to other accounts and could continue to carry out its operations, including salary payments.

“It does not stop the Osun State Government from running the government of the state because they have access to other funds in the other accounts that they have.

“In any case, the payment of salaries and other expenditures by the state government happens just once in a month. What we have done is not a blanket freezing of the account.

“It’s just a targeted freezing. Once we are satisfied that activities on that account are no longer suspicious, it will be lifted,” he said.

On the legal basis for the restriction, he pointed to specific statutory provisions empowering the commission to temporarily restrict access to an account.

“A number of people have asked whether the Commission has the power to do so under the law. I can assure you that we have the power to place a temporary restriction on an account.

“Section 34 of the EFCC Act and Section 7, Subsection 6 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2022 give us that authority to take that step,” he said.

He added that the restriction could remain in place for up to 72 hours before the commission would need to seek judicial backing if it wished to extend it.

“The restriction order can last within 72 hours before we can come with a court order if we need to provide a court order,” he said.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), Northern Caucus, has urged Nigerians, particularly those in the North, not to politicise the ongoing passport reform by the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS).

The Students insisted that the exercise is a nationwide modernisation programme and not an attempt to sideline any region.

The national vice president (external affairs) of NANS, Comrade Sadiq SK Zango, who spoke with journalists in Abuja on Thursday, dismissed claims that the Passport Centralisation Programme was designed to disadvantage northern states.

He said such allegations are false, misleading and politically motivated, noting that the student body deemed it necessary to clarify misconceptions following what he described as deliberate falsehood, propaganda and misinformation being circulated about the reform.

“We have considered it imperative to sensitise our comrades, brothers and sisters, and the entire population of northern Nigeria on the deliberate falsehood, propaganda and misinformation being peddled by some mischievous elements regarding the ongoing implementation of the Passport Centralisation Programme in the Nigeria Immigration Service,” he said.

According to him, the migration of passport production to the Central Personalisation Centre in Abuja does not stop passport processing or issuance at passport offices across the country or at Nigeria’s embassies and consulates abroad.

“The migration is purely operational and does not in any way halt passport processing and issuance at any passport office within Nigeria or at designated Nigerian embassies and consulates abroad. Rather, it is part of a broader modernisation programme aimed at strengthening the security, integrity and efficiency of Nigeria’s passport issuance system,” he added.

The NANS leader said the centralised system would ensure faster passport production, improve efficiency and strengthen document security.
“From our independent findings, all passport booklet printing and security personalisation have now been consolidated into a secure, centralised and high-capacity production hub in Abuja.

“This will ensure passports are produced within a two-week timeframe without unnecessary delays. The reform is designed to eliminate manual interventions, remove document arbitrage, enhance accountability and guarantee uniform quality standards with advanced security features embedded in every Nigerian passport,” he said.

Zango urged northerners to ignore rumours surrounding the reform, assuring them that the changes would ultimately produce a more secure and internationally respected Nigerian passport.