The recent confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and a naval officer, A.M. Yerima, over a disputed plot of land in Abuja has continued to stir legal and public debate. Weighing in on the controversy, constitutional law scholar and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof. Sebastine Hon, has described the officer’s actions as a violation of both legal and constitutional norms governing civil-military relations.
In a detailed statement shared via Facebook on Wednesday, Prof. Hon argued that the officer’s decision to block the FCT minister’s access to the property could not be defended under any lawful military directive. He stressed that obedience to superior orders does not extend to carrying out illegal instructions, citing Supreme Court precedents that reaffirm the limits of military authority in civil matters.
Quoting judgments in Onunze v. State (2023) and Nigeria Air Force v. James (2002), Hon explained that “no military officer is bound to obey an order that is patently unlawful or unjust.” He added that “the illegality in this case arises from the fact that no military regulation allows an officer to guard a private construction site on behalf of a superior, especially under questionable circumstances.”
The professor further noted that if security concerns genuinely existed at the site, “the retired Naval Officer in question should have contacted the police, who are constitutionally empowered to handle civil issues of that nature.”
Turning to the constitutional aspect of the incident, Hon emphasized that the FCT Minister derives his authority directly from the President, as stipulated in Sections 297(2) and 302 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). He explained that by law, Wike exercises presidential powers over land administration in Abuja, meaning that obstructing him amounts to challenging the office of the Commander-in-Chief himself.
“Even if the officer’s superior were still in active service, he would have no legal justification to obstruct the Minister from carrying out his duties,” Hon wrote. “Such an act constitutes an affront to the civil authority of the President of Nigeria.”
While acknowledging that Wike’s style of engagement may sometimes appear confrontational, Hon maintained that his actions in this instance were within the bounds of legality. The constitutional lawyer warned that the officer’s obstruction could attract disciplinary or criminal proceedings, citing Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, which holds service personnel accountable for civil offences.
He also cautioned against the growing tendency to glorify acts of insubordination against civil authorities, warning that such behavior could embolden security operatives to defy lawful orders in the future. “If this kind of conduct goes unpunished,” he said, “it could embolden others in uniform to act with impunity against civilians and public officials alike.”
The clash, which occurred at Plot 1946, Gaduwa District, Abuja, reportedly began when FCT officials attempted to enforce a stop-work order over disputed ownership and missing documentation. Viral videos of the scene showed heated exchanges between Wike and the uniformed officer, as the minister insisted on his right to inspect the site.
Addressing reporters after the altercation, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike expressed dismay at what he described as an attempt to use military connections to intimidate lawful authorities.
He explained that the altercation stemmed from an earlier incident in which military personnel allegedly intervened to stop FCT officials from enforcing a lawful directive on the disputed land.
“Initially, I was informed that some military officers came here to drive away my officials, which I considered an illegal action,” Wike said. “Today, while I was in the office, I received another report that the same area had been taken over by the military. I had to come personally to see what was happening—it is really unfortunate.”
The minister expressed disbelief that a senior officer would resort to using military influence rather than follow due administrative channels to resolve any grievances. “I don’t understand how someone of that standing cannot simply come to my office to discuss the matter,” he said. “Instead, he decided to use his position as a military man to intimidate Nigerians. But let me make it clear—I will not bow to blackmail or intimidation.”
As the controversy unfolds, legal analysts and citizens alike continue to weigh the broader implications of the incident — particularly its impact on the delicate balance between civil authority and military discipline in Nigeria’s democratic framework.