Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, has said the federal control of security agencies has limited his ability to effectively tackle insecurity and kidnapping incidents in the state.
Makinde made the remarks on Saturday while accepting the presidential nomination of the African Peoples Movement (APM) in Ibadan.
The governor expressed concern over the continued captivity of schoolchildren and other residents abducted by criminal elements in Oyo State, describing the situation as deeply troubling.
According to him, state governors are often held responsible for security outcomes despite lacking constitutional authority over the agencies responsible for maintaining law and order.
“Today, innocent schoolchildren and citizens abducted by criminals remain in captivity in Oyo State,” Makinde said.
He noted that although governors are commonly referred to as Chief Security Officers of their states, they do not have direct operational control over the police, military and other federal security institutions.
“As Governor of Oyo State, I carry the burden of being called the Chief Security Officer of the state, yet lacking constitutional control over the security agencies required to fully address these threats,” he stated.
Makinde argued that the current security structure places governors in a difficult position, as they are expected to guarantee security without possessing the authority needed to make critical operational decisions.
According to him, no elected leader should be held fully accountable for security challenges without being given the necessary powers to respond effectively.
“No elected leader should be held accountable for security outcomes without possessing the authority necessary to act decisively,” he added.
The governor’s comments come amid growing national debate over the creation of state police and broader reforms to Nigeria’s security architecture.
Recent kidnappings and attacks in parts of Oyo State, including the abduction of teachers and students in Oriire Local Government Area, have intensified calls for greater state involvement in security management.
Supporters of state policing argue that local authorities are better positioned to respond to security threats within their communities, while critics continue to raise concerns about potential abuse and political
