The controversy surrounding the recent confrontation between Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, and a naval officer in Abuja has taken a new turn as Professor Paul Ananaba (SAN), a respected constitutional lawyer and academic, declared that the naval officer indeed breached Nigerian law. His statement adds a fresh legal dimension to an already explosive altercation that has drawn reactions nationwide and reignited debates on the rule of law, civil–military relations, and public accountability.
Background: The Abuja Land Clash That Shocked the Nation
The now-viral incident occurred when Minister Nyesom Wike, during an official inspection in Abuja’s Gaduwa District, confronted a naval officer guarding a disputed property. The FCTA team had reportedly moved to enforce planning regulations, claiming the structure was being built without proper approval.
Eyewitness accounts say the naval officer resisted the demolition attempt and blocked Wike’s team from accessing the site. The confrontation quickly escalated into a heated exchange, with the visibly angry minister accusing the officer of “acting above the law.”
The minister was heard shouting, “You are a very big fool!” — a remark that has since stirred controversy across the country. The officer, maintaining composure, retorted that he was not a fool and was simply following orders.
The scene, captured on video and circulated widely online, triggered public outrage and divided opinion among Nigerians.
Professor Hon’s Reaction: A Legal Breakdown of the Incident
Reacting to the confrontation, Professor Paul Ananaba (SAN), a senior lawyer and university lecturer, said the naval officer’s conduct was not only improper but also unlawful.
According to him, no security personnel — whether military or paramilitary — has the authority to obstruct a minister or civil authority executing legitimate government duties within the FCT. He stressed that the Nigerian Constitution and the Armed Forces Act make it clear that the military must not interfere in purely civilian administrative functions.
Professor Hon explained:
“The naval officer clearly breached the law. No matter who ordered him to act, it was wrong to challenge a serving minister on official duty. In a democratic setting, military officers are subject to civil authority. What happened there was an abuse of power and a misrepresentation of military discipline.”
He added that the naval personnel involved could face internal disciplinary measures if the military high command finds their actions inconsistent with service rules.
Why the Clash Matters: Rule of Law vs Military Authority
The Abuja confrontation has gone beyond a mere verbal exchange — it represents a critical test of Nigeria’s rule of law and the relationship between civil authorities and the military.
Experts argue that the incident underscores lingering concerns about the misuse of military personnel by private individuals to secure land or property. Professor Hon noted that if such acts are not checked, they could embolden lawlessness and erode confidence in government institutions.
He emphasized that the FCT Minister was within his rights to demand lawful compliance from anyone developing land in Abuja, regardless of their position or affiliation.
“No one is above the law. Even if a retired or serving military officer owns the property, he must still go through the legal process of obtaining approval. That’s what the minister was trying to enforce,” Hon stated.
Wike’s Position: ‘I Cannot Be Intimidated’
Minister Wike has remained firm in his stance that the FCTA will not tolerate illegal land acquisitions or unapproved developments in the capital city.
Addressing reporters after the clash, Wike reaffirmed his commitment to restoring Abuja’s original master plan and warned that no amount of intimidation would deter his administration.
“We can’t have a situation where people, because of their connections or uniform, believe they can take the law into their own hands. I cannot be intimidated by anyone. The law must be obeyed,” he declared.
His remarks drew both praise and criticism. While many Nigerians applauded his firmness in upholding the law, others faulted his choice of words during the confrontation.
Reactions Across Nigeria: Mixed Emotions
The incident has dominated national discussions across social media, television, and radio talk shows.
- Supporters of Wike argue that his strong stance is necessary to end impunity and illegal land grabbing in the FCT.
- Critics, however, say the minister should have exercised restraint and maintained decorum befitting his office.
- Military veterans and associations have also called on Wike to apologize to the naval officer for using derogatory language, emphasizing that discipline must be maintained on both sides.
Legal Experts Back the Minister
Despite the backlash, Professor Hon’s position has found support among several legal minds who insist that the law was on Wike’s side.
Human rights lawyer and senior advocate, Barr. Abdul Mahmud, echoed similar sentiments, noting that the military cannot function as a “private security outfit” for landowners.
He said, “Nigeria’s democracy must be protected from military interference. Any officer acting outside official military duty in a civilian environment is violating the law. The minister had every right to demand accountability.”
Public Opinion: Nigerians Split on the Issue
On the streets and online, Nigerians remain divided:
- Some say Wike’s action is long overdue, describing him as “the only minister bold enough to confront impunity head-on.”
- Others argue that while enforcing the law is commendable, public officials must lead with civility, diplomacy, and respect for uniformed officers.
Analysts believe the incident could set a precedent for how future government officials approach the military in civil affairs — balancing firmness with respect.
Military Response: Investigations Underway
Following public outcry, the Defence Headquarters reportedly initiated an internal review to determine the exact circumstances of the naval officer’s involvement.
Military sources hinted that the officer may be questioned to clarify who authorized his presence at the disputed land site and under what capacity he acted.
If found guilty of misconduct, disciplinary measures could follow, reinforcing the Armed Forces’ commitment to professionalism and obedience to civil authority.
