I am sure that Nigerians will be wondering why I am extending the congratulatory message to the Minister in the light of what transpired between him and the naval officer on Tuesday. I am doing so because on a typical day where such incident occurs, it is a panel of enquiry that will be ongoing after the demise of the subject. It is this survival luck of the Minister that warrants the congratulatory message otherwise a repeat of the “mad dogs” assault involving Chief M. K. O. Abiola and some military officers in the 1980s would have been a disaster. I salute the calmness and composure of the naval officer to whom I shall return later in the discourse.
The recent confrontational exchange between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and the serving naval officer over a disputed parcel of land in Abuja is more than just a momentary flashpoint. It is a troubling reflection of the larger fault-lines in our governance architecture: the abuse of authority, the erosion of institutional respect, and the drift from rule of law to raw displays of power. The incident has stirred rightful criticism from military veterans including the former Chief of Army Staff, General Buratai and segments of the civil society who view it as a breach of the dignity of public office.
In this discourse, I am taking a critical, and even caustic, view of Minister Wike’s attitude in the episode, not merely on the basis of what happened, but more importantly on what it signals: the arrogance of power, the spectacle of intimidation, the undermining of procedural norms, and the disservice to democratic governance. In doing so, this conversation will draw on broader themes such as respect for institutions, checks and balances, equity, and public service ethos.
In order to appropriately situate the episode, it is best to contextualize it within the framework of land governance and the Federal Capital Territory. Land in the Federal Capital Territory is not simply real estate, just as in Lagos and Port Harcourt, it is a highly charged commodity, a governance test and a litmus for fairness.
The FCT Administration’s repeated announcements of crack-downs on illegal allocations and developments serve as a backdrop to the incident. The veracity or otherwise of the allegations remains suspect against the various loud allegations and accusations of land grabbing against the Minister himself. This is however not my destination in this engagement but a topic for another day.
Permit me to quickly register the point that when a Minister visits a disputed plot such as Plot 1946, Gaduwa, Abuja and finds armed soldiers barring access on behalf of a party allegedly lacking legal title, what we witnessed is a clash not just between individuals but between rule-based governance and raw assertion of might.
Against this backdrop, the role of the Minister is to be the guardian of process, the overseer of administration, and not to become the fulcrum of histrionics or public spectacle. While the mission of the Minister to the land was based on a noble duty to ensure prevalence of law and order in our land management and ownership, a duty the Constitution and the general laws of the land cast on him by virtue of being the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, one would have expected a more dignifying and self-respectful approach and conduct in carrying out his responsibilities.
The Yoruba say ti won ba ran eni ni’se eru, aa fi t’omo je which literally means when one is sent on a slavish errand, you execute it with the honour of a freeborn. Rather, the incident suggests that Wike assumed the posture of power rather than stewardship, an attitude that demands deprecation. It is my view and the public perception, that what transpired was simply a brute display of arrogance and disrespect.
According to reports, when Minister Wike approached the site, he found uniformed naval personnel blocking access.He ordered access which was declined by the naval officer. At this point, the Minister was reported to have descended on the officer by first demanding who he was, certainly in a derogatory manner, as obviously his identity was not hidden. Attempt by the officer to appropriately respond to the queries of the Minister was met with ministerial directive to the officer to keep quiet.
The naval officer, Lt. A. M. Yarima reportedly responded: “Sir, you cannot tell me to keep quiet. I am a commissioned officer.” The Minister, in turn, is reported as asking: “Who gave you the order? ” and so on. The event then degenerated to the level of the Minister calling the naval officer a fool, amongst other uncomplimentary remarks. In the short space of time, the language turned public, heated and acrimonious. From the altercations and emerging confusion thereafter, so many wrongs came to the fore with several interlocking behaviors.
The uncomplimentary remarks of the Minister amounts to public airing of contempt and disrespect.For a Minister to address a uniformed officer as follows, “you are a fool” or “you don’t know what you’re doing” is an unseemly spectacle. The veterans’ group put it succinctly: “How can a public office-holder call an officer ‘a fool’ on camera?” The insult serves no purpose other than to belittle the officer, reduce respect for office, and thereby tarnish the Minister’s own dignity.
The Minister has not only humiliated an officer of the Federal Republic and by extension, the entire populace that commissioned the officer but, his appointor, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces whom the officer represents. Beyond this basic, the Minister threw caution to the wind and escalated the situation rather than de-escalating it. A mature public servant lays down the law quietly, engages in administrative channels, gives instructive direction.
What played out here instead resembled a brawl of ego. In the face of a blockade, the Minister should have responded with calm, procedural firmness, not visible frustration, shouting, turning away in anger as deducible from the trending video. But for the restraint of the Minister by some staff ultimately, he probably would have engaged the officer in fisticuffs.
The implication of the drama was sheer display of power theater over public duty. The presence of armed soldiers at a land dispute site and the presence of the Minister on site together suggests a deliberate display of authority. Whether orchestrated or emergent, the optics scream: “I am the Minister, I have the muscle.” That is a dangerous territory. As rightly noted by the former Chief of Army staff, Buratai, that was reckless, to say the least. It reinforces the idea that governance is about power projection, not about process, consent and legitimacy. Again, the attitude of the Minister is a selective invocation of chain-of-command.
In this respect, Wike’s statement that “I am not one of those who will succumb to blackmail or intimidation” implies positioning himself as the victim of intimidation by military muscle. Yet, in doing so, he inverted roles: the servant of the public, who should abide by rules, becomes the heroic figure fighting intimidation. It is the wrong framing.
Ministers do not cast themselves as lone heroes. They act in the machinery of governance with checks, balances and courtesy. The institutional implications of all this is pure erosion of respect and rule of law. The fallout from the incident is not a mere squabble, it has deeper consequences for institutional faith and the rule of law.
Firstly, the dignity of uniformed service.When a senior Minister confronts a naval officer publicly and permitting insults, it sends a message to disciplined services that their status is negotiable, their chain of command subverted, and the civilian authority above them can still degrade them. This is not only bad for morale but for the civil-military relationship. In fact, if anything, he has succeeded in courting the enmity of the entire military.Wike has not shown leadership example. He succeeded in degrading the importance of institutional ethos. Here, Wike’s attitude undermines his own office as much as it does others. This warns us that unchecked arrogance of a leader could spill over into institutional decay.
As much I respect and salute the officer involved, the hierarchy under which the officer was operating unveils also the rule of law versus muscle. If access to land, municipal regulation, building approvals can be thwarted by uniformed personnel or “orders from above,” irrespective of paperwork, then the rule of law becomes a hollow shell. Citizens perceive that power, not process, determines outcomes. In the land-rich FCT environment, that perception is corrosive. I situate the position of the officer within the framework of obeying the last order. He is not blameworthy as his professional command mandates him to behave as such. He simply cannot do otherwise.
The officer, rather than being reprimanded, deserves promotion for his professional conduct in my view, at least, not allowing his men to escalate the situation further and taking control. I have read an intervention, taken out context in my view, on the limit to obedience to order. It is certainly not in the circumstances under consideration and I do not share the thoughts.
Source: Sundiata Post