In a development raising concerns over civil-military relations in Nigeria, prominent human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, has publicly called on Bola Tinubu to compel the Nyesom Wike‐led Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) to apologise for a confrontational exchange with a serving naval officer during a land dispute in Abuja.
The incident, which occurred at a disputed parcel of land in Gaduwa District, Abuja, has since triggered widespread commentary, not only about the matter of land ownership but about the broader implications for discipline, hierarchy and public service decorum.
What exactly happened?
According to accounts, Minister Wike visited the site of the disputed land — reported to be linked to a former Chief of Naval Staff — and encountered a uniformed naval officer, Lieutenant A. M. Yerima, who was overseeing armed personnel guarding the plot. The minister engaged the officer verbally, accusing him of acting without due approval. In video footage that circulated online, Wike is heard saying: “You’re in uniform telling me the Navy owns this land? Who gave you approval to build?” The officer reportedly responded that he was acting under instruction from his superior.
Falana contended that while the minister was within his statutory remit under Section 11 of the Land Use Act to direct enforcement, his approach lacked the necessary decorum and emotional intelligence required of someone in his public office. He emphasised: “On no ground should a Minister call any Nigerian ‘a fool’.”
At the same time, Falana criticised the naval officer for assuming a role of defending private property, suggesting that the officer’s actions — guarding private land rather than acting purely in public interest — were problematic.
Why the apology matter matters
There are several layers to why Falana and others consider the apology non-negotiable:
1. Institutional respect and chain of command
The uniformed services — including the navy — represent not just individuals but the sovereignty of the state. Any public confrontation with a uniformed officer is viewed by many analysts as undermining that symbolism. For example, retired Lucky Irabor commented that the uniform “represents the authority of the state.”
2. Civil-military relations and governance norms
When a senior civilian official argues publicly and aggressively with a military officer, it risks eroding discipline and respect for institutional hierarchy. Retired army chief Tukur Yusuf Buratai described the act as “a verbal assault on a military officer in uniform… an act of profound indiscipline.”
3. Public service ethics and accountability
A minister is expected to lead by example, demonstrating restraint, procedural rigour and respect for other arms of government. Many civil society organisations have condemned the minister’s behaviour as reckless and disrespectful, and called for public apology to restore confidence.
4. National security implications
The significance of the matter extends beyond one incident: public disrespect of uniformed personnel can have ripple effects on morale and internal discipline—both key to national security. This point was highlighted by military veterans and commentators.
What’s next?
According to reports:
Falana’s call places pressure on President Tinubu and the FCTA to publicly manage the fallout and issue a corrective response.
The Nigerian Armed Forces (NAF) has indicated that it is launching an investigation into the land dispute and associated security deployment.
Minister of State for Defence Bello Matawalle has stated there is “no basis to sanction” the officer involved, describing his conduct as lawful and disciplined.
The minister (Wike) has since clarified publicly that he “does not have any problem with the military.”
Implications for governance and public discourse
This incident, while on its face a land dispute, touches on deeper issues:
The boundaries of ministerial authority: Public officials looking to enforce laws should conform strictly to procedure, communication and oversight—not side‐stepping through confrontations.
Role of military in civil disputes: When uniformed personnel become parties to property or land disputes, it raises questions about overlap between defence functions and private interests.
Public service tone and language: In an era when institutional respect is under stress, language matters. The use of derogatory remarks by a minister against an officer triggers broader democratic concerns.
Symbolic weight of the armed forces: For many Nigerians, the military remains one of the most trusted institutions. How civilian leaders interact with it has wider resonance for national morale.
Media and social reaction: The clip of the altercation circulated broadly online; public sentiment tilted toward commendation of the officer’s composure and criticism of the minister’s style.
Final thoughts
The call by Femi Falana for a formal apology from Minister Wike is more than a push for etiquette: it is a demand for reaffirmation of institutional respect, proper chain of command, and accountability in public service. If honoured, it could serve as a corrective for future ministerial behaviour. If ignored, it may deepen mistrust between government actors, the military, and the public.
As Nigeria continues to confront pressing security, governance and rule-of-law challenges, episodes like this highlight how symbolism, behaviour and institutional integrity matter just as much as formal statutes.
0 Comments