Reported by: L . Imafidon | Edited by: Henry Owen
Abuja, Nigeria – The recent confrontation between FCT Minister, Mr. Nyesom Wike, and Nigerian military personnel over a disputed land plot in Gaduwa, Abuja, has highlighted serious questions about law, military discipline, and accountability. While retired generals were quick to condemn Wike’s actions, they have remained largely silent about the illegal deployment of military personnel to protect private property, raising concerns about the integrity and priorities within Nigeria’s armed forces.
Several retired military leaders—including Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusuf Buratai, Brigadier Generals Peter Aro and Bashir Adewinbi, and General Lucky Irabor—issued statements condemning Wike for publicly confronting a uniformed officer. Buratai described the incident as “a reckless act that undermines the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and the integrity of the Armed Forces,” warning that it “poses a clear and present danger to national security” (Vanguard News, PRNigeria). Brigadier General Aro emphasized that while questioning land ownership is legitimate, humiliating a uniformed officer publicly was unacceptable (Legit.ng). Other retired generals echoed similar sentiments, stressing that uniforms symbolize the authority of the state, not the individual wearing them (Vanguard News).
[Explanation for readers: These criticisms focus narrowly on Wike’s conduct and the appearance of disorder in confronting soldiers, without addressing the core legal and ethical issue—the military officer was deployed illegally to protect private land. This selective criticism reveals a priority on protocol and hierarchy over public accountability. In other words, the generals are more concerned about perceived disrespect to the military than about misuse of public resources for private interests.]
According to Wike, the land in question—Plot 1946 in Gaduwa—was being developed without proper title documents or building approvals (Vanguard News, PRNigeria). His Development Control department issued a stop-work order, but when officials attempted to enforce it, they were blocked by armed soldiers, and military trucks were used to prevent access (NewsKobo, PRNigeria). Wike questioned why a retired Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Awwal Zubairu Gambo, would deploy soldiers to intimidate government officials instead of addressing the matter through official legal channels. “No one — not even a former Chief of Naval Staff — is above the law,” Wike emphasized (PRNigeria, TheCable).
[Explanation: Wike’s point is critical. Even if his approach was confrontational, his actions were a response to an illegal act—the misuse of national security personnel to serve private interests. The broader principle here is that the state’s instruments, including the military, exist to enforce the law and protect public resources. Deploying soldiers to defend personal property violates that principle and undermines public trust.]
From the military perspective, Lieutenant A. M. Yerima, the officer involved, claimed he was “acting on orders” and that the land acquisition was legal (Nigeria News Today, West African Pilot News). He said relevant documents had been submitted to the authorities and defended his actions as carried out with humility and respect (allAfrica.com).
[Explanation: Nigerian law is explicit on this point. Soldiers are only required to obey lawful orders from the proper chain of command. Orders to protect private property—especially coming from a retired officer—are manifestly illegal. Sections 56 and 57 of the Armed Forces Act criminalize disobedience to lawful orders but do not protect personnel who follow unlawful commands. Case law, including Onunze v. State (2023) and Nigerian Air Force v. James (2002), confirms that soldiers may be held personally liable if they obey illegal directives.]
The involvement of retired generals in this debate raises additional concerns. These individuals advanced their careers through taxpayer-funded training, equipment, and salaries, yet their public statements focus almost exclusively on condemning Wike’s confrontation with the military personnel, not on addressing the abuse of military power to serve private interests.
[Explanation: By remaining silent on the illegal deployment, the retired generals appear to condone misuse of public resources while prioritizing the preservation of military prestige over accountability. This exposes a troubling dynamic in which personal relationships or status within the military hierarchy may overshadow adherence to the law and ethical standards.]
While Wike’s method of confronting soldiers can be debated, the root cause of the incident is the illegal act of deploying military personnel for private purposes. This incident exposes hidden structural challenges within the military, where influence and connections can override the rule of law. Citizens rightly expect retired generals and active military leaders—whose careers were funded by taxpayers—to speak out against such abuses and uphold the Constitution, rather than selectively defending protocol.
Ultimately, this is more than a clash between a minister and military personnel; it is a reflection of how public institutions and taxpayer resources can be exploited when accountability is absent. The military exists to serve the nation, enforce the law, and protect citizens—not to protect the personal interests of a privileged few. Until abuses like these are addressed transparently, public trust in Nigeria’s armed forces will continue to erode, exposing deep-rooted governance and integrity challenges within the institution.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments