The inauguration of the Presidential Working Group on State Policing on 7 July 2026 should have been a defining moment in Nigeria’s search for a workable security architecture.
Instead, the composition of the Presidential Working Group on State Policing has shifted attention from the promise of reform to the politics of representation; to who is missing at the table and the deficit of representation.
According to the published list, the 13-member body comprises nine members from the South-West, two from the South-East, and one each from Plateau and Nasarawa states in the North-Central. There is no representative from the North-West, North-East and South-South.
On a matter as sensitive as state policing, that imbalance is not a minor detail. Inclusion is not an option; it is key and consequential.
State policing is not an ordinary policy debate. It goes to the heart of Nigeria’s security, unity and constitutional future. It affects every region, state, and citizen. More importantly, it directly concerns communities that have lived through terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, militancy and violent crime. A national conversation of this magnitude must not only be fair, it must also be seen to be.
In a diverse federation, representation is not decoration. It is legitimacy. Countries managing ethnic, religious and regional diversity succeed when decision-making reflects the breadth of their societies. Nigeria’s complexity is not a weakness to be managed reluctantly; it is a reality that must be respected deliberately. National unity is not proclaimed from podiums; it is demonstrated through participation.
The complete absence of the North-West and North-East is especially difficult to explain. These are the zones that have carried some of the heaviest burdens of terrorism, banditry and mass displacement. Communities in these zones have paid in blood, lives and livelihoods. If any regions possess hard-earned lived experience on policing and internal security, it is these regions. Those who bear the deepest scars should not be missing from the table where solutions are designed.
The exclusion of the South-South raises an equally deep concern. That region has grappled with militancy, oil theft, pipeline vandalism, maritime insecurity, cult violence and complex community policing challenges for decades. Its experience is unique. Its perspective is valuable. Ignoring such realities weakens the quality of national policy. You cannot design a national security framework while leaving entire security realities outside the room. Policy is strongest when it listens first to those who have paid the highest price.
This is why the principle of federal character exists. It reflects the understanding that Nigeria can best be governed when its diversity is respected. Federal Character Is not a Formality.
The spirit of federal character is simple: No section should feel invisible in decisions that affect everyone. Even where the law may not prescribe a rigid quota for an advisory body, sound democratic judgment demands broad inclusion. This is not questioning the competence of those appointed. Many may be eminently qualified. However, the issue is ultimately larger than the identities of the individuals appointed. It is about institutional credibility, more so, that competence alone cannot substitute for legitimacy.
Similarly, public confidence depends not only on who is appointed, but also on who is absent; who is missing, also matters. A balanced process gives strength to a good policy. An unbalanced process collapses the work even before it begins. Let’s face it; What we have is a Committee that doesn’t look like Nigeria.
The tragedy is that this controversy was avoidable. The Presidency still has an opportunity to strengthen this process. Expanding the Working Group to accommodate voices from the omitted geo-political zones would not diminish excellence, it would strengthen credibility; It would deepen and broaden ownership. It would improve and reinforce confidence in the reform process and the prospects of acceptance across the federation.
The debate over state policing is too consequential to carry the burden of avoidable questions about representation. Nigeria’s diversity is not an obstacle to policy; it is the foundation of successful policy.
State policing cannot succeed if large sections of the country conclude that they were spectators in shaping its future. Building state policing on an uneven foundation is a wrong start. National reforms survive because people believe they belong to them.
Trust Requires Representation. When representation is lopsided, trust becomes fragile. When trust becomes fragile, consensus becomes impossible. And without consensus, even the best reforms struggle to endure.
Consensus is not demanded; it is cultivated. Inclusion is not charity; it is strategy. When every region sees its reflection in a national policy, the nation stands taller. But when entire regions see only an empty chair, trust begins to leave the room. And when trust leaves the room, even the best policies may never find their feet.
A nation does not fracture only when bullets fly; it also fractures when confidence in its institutions quietly disappears. That’s the cost of Exclusion.
