Abuja, Nigeria – 12 November 2025 – A recent confrontation in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has ignited fierce debate over the role of the Nigerian military, with critics labelling the incident as a stark example of lawlessness and insubordination. The episode, involving FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and military personnel reportedly guarding land for a retired naval officer, has drawn sharp rebukes from commentators, who argue it undermines civilian authority and wastes national resources.
The incident, which unfolded in Abuja, saw Minister Wike – a vocal ally of President Bola Tinubu – clashing with soldiers stationed on disputed land. According to accounts circulating on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), the military’s presence was allegedly ordered by a retired Chief of Naval Staff, prompting accusations of “brigandry” and misuse of serving officers. Critics contend that such actions represent a clear breach of protocol, with one observer describing it as “unbelievably mind-blowing” and calling for the dismissal of all involved personnel.
“In a sane society, all military personnel involved in the incident would cease to be military personnel,” one commentator stated, emphasising that the soldiers’ actions constituted insubordination not just against Wike, but against the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, President Tinubu. The critique extended to the inefficiency of deploying highly trained officers – after years at the Nigerian Defence Academy – to act as guards for private land interests. “Is it not a waste of training resources?” the post queried.
Defenders of Wike’s stance argue that he was largely justified in his response, barring his use of foul language. As FCT Minister, Wike has the authority to inspect lands in Abuja, a duty he was reportedly exercising during the face-to-face encounter. “No matter what we all think about Wike and Tinubu, he was 90% correct regarding that incident,” another commenter noted, adding that the military had no business being on the site. Instead, any protection required should have involved police officers, not active-duty soldiers or personal bodyguards.
The retired naval officer at the centre of the controversy has come under particular fire. Described as a “civilian” post-retirement, he is accused of issuing illegal orders to serving personnel, abusing his former position. “He should be stripped of his retiring rank. He has a lawless mentality,” the criticism read, equating him to any other civilian engaging in unlawful activities. This has fuelled broader discussions on the Nigerian military’s discipline and training, with detractors tracing its issues back to colonial-era roots as “remnants of Taubman Goldie’s constabulary.”
Commentators have painted a damning picture of the armed forces as “poorly trained, unruly, undisciplined, and lawless,” influenced by a history of coups and political interventions. This “tout mindset,” as one put it, leads to comfort in confronting civilians rather than focusing on border security. “For the military to earn respect, they must act as true border guards and not as dangerous land grabbers,” the statement urged.
The incident has evoked memories of past military excesses, with activist Dele Farotimi drawing parallels to infamous events. In a pointed critique of “military brigandry,” Farotimi remarked: “The soldiers at Lekki tollgate were obeying orders, the ones at Odi were obeying orders, and the ones who killed 430+ Shiite in Zaria were also following orders. Hopefully, they will not follow orders to kpai you one day.” He further observed that Nigerians often applaud actions that challenge their oppressors, even if rooted in impunity: “Nigerians will applaud anyone and anything that discomfits their oppressors. They reflexively applauded Trump, fraudulent patriotism be damned, and now they applaud Yerima’s regimented impunity, as an antidote to Wike’s madness.”
Echoing these sentiments, journalist and activist Omoyele Sowore highlighted the misallocation of military priorities. “The military’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the country’s borders, but instead, it is devoting resources to protect a parcel of land for a high-ranking officer, allegedly acting on ‘orders.’ This pathetic scenario is the pervasive self-interest among officials who cater to the interests of a privileged minority at the expense of national protection,” Sowore stated.
Amidst the outcry, the episode underscores ongoing concerns about civilian-military relations in Nigeria, a nation still grappling with the legacies of military rule. While no official response from the Nigerian Defence Headquarters or the Presidency has been forthcoming as of this report, the public discourse on X reflects a deep-seated frustration with perceived impunity. Analysts suggest that without reforms to reinforce civilian oversight, such incidents risk further eroding trust in the armed forces.
As Nigeria navigates these challenges, calls for accountability grow louder, with many insisting that the military must prioritise national defence over private interests to reclaim its role as a disciplined institution.
