Keypoints:
- Military overreach threatens civil authority
- Wike–Yerima clash exposes systemic impunity
- Nigeria must reassert constitutional order
THE recent clash between FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Naval Officer A.M. Yerima has ignited a national debate that goes far beyond a roadside argument. It has become a stark reminder of Nigeria’s declining adherence to soft governance, weakening constitutionalism and a persistent military overhang in civic and political life. What the public witnessed was not a small misunderstanding but a window into a far more troubling national problem.
Yerima’s decision to block the minister from entering a disputed parcel of land, while claiming he was ‘obeying superior orders’, must be understood for what it was: a direct challenge to constitutional authority. Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution is unambiguous. Under section 297(2), all land in the FCT belongs to the Federal Government, with the President delegating full administrative responsibility to the FCT Minister. Wike was acting within his legal mandate. Yerima was not.
Nigeria’s Supreme Court has consistently held that military and paramilitary personnel swear loyalty first and foremost to the Constitution
When ‘orders’ trump the Constitution
Nigeria’s Supreme Court has consistently held that military and paramilitary personnel swear loyalty first and foremost to the Constitution. No internal directive, selective command or off-the-record order can supersede that obligation. Yerima’s defiance highlights a corrosive culture within parts of the armed forces where questionable instructions from above are treated as superior to the nation’s supreme law.
The situation worsened when former Chief of Army Staff, General Tukur Buratai, entered the fray with remarks that appeared to defend the officer rather than reinforce military professionalism. Instead of condemning an obvious breach of protocol, segments of the military elite chose to amplify the narrative of ‘protecting military honour’, even when such honour clashes directly with democratic norms.
A military that has struggled to contain terrorism, kidnapping, and banditry across large stretches of the country found itself flexing its authority not against armed criminals but against a serving minister performing lawful duties.
Confusion in rank, duty and ethics
Yerima’s bold declaration during the confrontation — claiming he was ‘a two-star General’ — exposed deeper institutional inconsistencies. A Lieutenant posing as a General is more than an exaggeration; it is a symptom of distorted military discipline. It reflects an environment where rank is casually misrepresented, accountability is loose, and impunity is rewarded.
The land in question is tied to Vice Admiral Awwal Zubairu Gambo, former Chief of Naval Staff. Originally allocated to Santos Estate Limited in 2007 for park and recreational purposes, the property was later sold informally to private individuals, including Gambo, without due authorisation. Yerima was deployed not to protect public interest but to guard the private interests of a retired senior officer whose claim to the land is now deeply controversial.
This raises a critical question: did Yerima act on lawful military instructions or on the authority of individuals using their former positions to secure personal property? Nigeria’s security history is filled with allegations that defence funds intended for fighting terrorism have been diverted into private investments, properties and foreign assets — a pattern the public is well aware of.
A military elite under scrutiny
General Buratai’s intervention cannot be separated from his own record. Allegations have lingered for years, including claims linked to the acquisition of luxury Dubai properties worth around $1.5 million. His tenure was marred by reports of human rights abuses, procurement irregularities and unresolved operational failures. Against such a backdrop, his defence of Yerima appears less like institutional loyalty and more like an attempt to preserve a long-standing culture of impunity.
The irony is glaring: a military establishment that has struggled to bring calm to insurgency-plagued regions is quick to assert power over civilian authorities in matters that fall outside its remit.
Civil authority must be defended
Nigeria must urgently reassert the supremacy of civilian governance. The military’s constitutional role is not to police land matters, confront ministers, or provide personal security services for retired officers. Its task is to defend the nation from the violent threats destabilising communities across the federation.
The growing trend of uniformed officers publicly posturing against elected or appointed officials signals a dangerous drift toward democratic erosion. More than two decades since Nigeria returned to civil rule, pockets of the military remain reluctant to fully embrace subordination to civilian authority.
While Wike’s style may be brusque, Yerima’s conduct was a clear violation of service regulations and constitutional duty. A country that normalises such behaviour risks exposing ordinary citizens to similar forms of unchecked aggression from men in uniform.
The Constitution remains the anchor
Nigeria’s future stability depends on a universal principle: no military figure, serving or retired, can override lawful civil authority. Attempts to weaponise military influence against government officials erode state legitimacy and weaken professional military culture.
The Wike–Yerima episode should not be trivialised as a viral spectacle. It must be treated as a critical reminder of the value of constitutional order and the dangers of unchecked khaki overreach. Nigeria cannot afford a slide into authoritarian reflexes masquerading as discipline.
Erasmus Ikhide, is a journalist and publisher based in Lagos, Nigeria
