Opinion
Still On Misinformation
The spate of deliberate and mischief-intended lies in the Nigerian polity is alarming. The worst of it all is that everybody seems to be involved one way or the other. If one does not originate it, one will either disregard it or spread it, sometimes in the guise of finding out the truth of the matter, or even wallow in the euphoria therein.
Only few people seem perturbed about the development. But even then, there’s really little such set of people could do to change the trend. The reason is that it is so deep-rooted in the polity that doing so is widely viewed as an anomaly, hence only a lesser percentage of those who truly feel bothered about the development can do anything meaningful. But, again, that is another kettle of fish.
The benefit of hindsight has revealed that even when this relative few people know what to do about it, they would rather exploit the situation, tagging it exigencies of the moment usually for personal gains, which could be individualistic or group-oriented.
Take the lies and counter lies that preceded and heralded the death of Nigeria’s first ever civilian President to die on seat, Umaru Musa Yar ‘Adua, for instance. Even when it was obvious that he had passed on, family members in connivance with top government functionaries continued to lie about it.
Within this period, we were told that a lot of political and fraudulent shenanigans took place to the detriment of the populace and nation at large. When the dust finally settled, and these lies became undeniable, it became business as usual. Nobody was made to answer for sending the entire nation on such ridiculously unpadonable foolery.
For all most Nigerians care, the same scenario may be playing out in the present case with President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB). Everybody worth his salt can tell that our President is ill. In fact, he had not been too sound in health even before he was elected President. So the question of whether he is healthy may not arise.
The Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, on Saturday was on air lamenting the level of misinformation going on in Nigeria through the social media. According to him, it is capable of crippling the country.
This is quite true. Unfortunately, it is also true that nothing with life grows on air. There must be a base. This base, in this case, could be formed either by commission or omission.
It is easy to relate what the minister said to the ongoing postings in the social media implying that PMB is dead. But the question is, what gave the basis to such posts? It would amount to chasing shadows, just for the heck of it, if emphasis is first laid on the truthfulness of the posts, rather than what gave reason to it.
As a politician of no mean feat, the Minister would truly have been seen to be making genuine efforts to check the trend of deliberate misinformation of the Nigerian populace if he had come up with concrete information on the state of the health of PMB.
There is no wrong in PMB making a live broadcast from wherever he is, if the claim that he is hale and hearty is true, for instance.
It is the seeming few in power deliberate intent by the authorities to withhold, information on the state of health of our President that forms the basis of all the hullabaloo over his death.
To, therefore, complain about the reactions of concerned citizens about the health of their President without addressing the action of the relevant authorities that warranted the reactions, amounts to on the intelligence of the populace.
The bitter truth is that there’s no better way to check misinformation in a society than providing necessary information at the right time. But, of course, this may remain a mirage as long as the privileged OR continue to see the country as theirs, instead of seeing it as everybody’s.
It thus becomes a cause for concern to know that a negligible number of persons who are privileged to have access to the President, will ignore the fact that the health of the President is the concern of every Nigerian. And that from the moment Buhari became President, he owes every Nigerian a responsibility to inform of his whereabouts.
In the same way, if he is incapacitated, those whose responsibility it is to watch over him owe Nigerians an explanation of the whereabouts of their number one citizen.
This is what the civilised world we claim to emulate do. When this is not done, every right-thinking person is bound to interpret events from their own perspective as they unfold.
Soibi Max-Alaibo
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
