Opinion
As Buhari Enters Second Half …
On May 29, 2017, the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari commenced its second half of the four-year tenure. Indeed, Nigerians have mixed experiences. The fight against corruption on one side and diversification of the economy on the other side and then, foreign exchange crisis due to unprecedented crash in global crude oil prices.
To a few that superficially voted for the All Progressives Congress (APC), the first half was a drift on account of the hardship in the country. Unfortunately, the deed was already done.
Beyond doubt, it was tough, rough and hard-hitting that having three square meals by some families became a war.
To others, particularly matured minds, it was, and still is a worthy sacrifice, akin to the Biblical Moses and his journey to the promised land. On the way, it became sturdy that some couldn’t sustain it and therefore, lost confidence in Moses. They called him names and requested for reinstatement to former positions.
In other words, giving support to the Federal Government at this critical period is vital vis-à-vis government’s efforts towards restructuring the economy. Reports across most states show various strenuous blueprints towards becoming self-reliant on the same commodities that were hitherto imported . They attest that the change is gradually working.
Abia State Governor, Okezie Ikpeazu, for instance, recently affirmed that Aba traders now export N1 billion worth of quality leather-shoes to overseas weekly. Verifiably, made-in-Nigeria shoes have indeed moved to the next level; on designs, quality and convenience comparable to foreign shoes.
By implication, the ban placed on some imported goods by the Federal Government, though negatively affected importers, is overtly resuscitating our local industries as well as improving the economy in terms of job creation.
With the new mindset on improving on our local products, if adequate financial facilities can be accessible to genuine indigenous manufacturers towards boosting large scale production, I believe it will, in no distant time, boost the standard of living and the economy.
Ditto for agriculture. Lagos, Ebonyi, Enugu and a host of other states, for example, are waxing very strong in rice production that if the tempo is progressively sustained, the prices may crash below expectations, soon.
In Anambra, Governor Willie Obiano has announced the state’s target to export one million tubers of yam and other vegetables, this year. Suffice it to say that successful diversification to agriculture is yielding results.
Other states are equally working assiduously not to be left out. Recently, Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State presented to the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo his action-plans towards boosting agriculture in the state and reiterated his willingness to collaborate with the Federal Government for enhanced productivity.
Incontrovertibly, the medical vacations embarked upon by President Buhari in the United Kingdom which paved way for Osinbajo, the Vice President, to take charge on acting capacity proved one or two remarkable points to the country. First, Professor Osinbajo operates and associates freely with the same states, people and localities that have been no-go areas to President Buhari. The tension in some quarters has since subsided.
By implications, the economy could blossom exceedingly if Nigerians see each other as co-partners in the Nigeria-project.
The second point to decipher is that the adoption of Professor Osinbajo as the running mate to Buhari as well as his engagement to head the economic team is now evidently philosophical. It shows that with Buhari’s political will pooled with Osinbajo’s weath of knowledge and subtlety, the country is settled for giant strides. It now dawns on those that hitherto regarded Osinbajo’s office as redundant, that the office of the Vice President can be made vibrant depending on the occupant.
Imperatively, as the Federal Government works towards fixing the country, the Buhari administration should bear it in mind that some more radical actions are still needed particularly by deploying more competent hands to some of the key sectors.
Every significant transformation will always come with tough times; hence, frivolous allowances of public office holders need to be put to a halt. Such bonanza-packages are too heavy on the economy at the moment if we must achieve speedy resuscitation.
Finally, now that the second half of the Buhari administration has kicked off, appraisal on the cabinet is necessary. Those that made the cabinet list considerably on partisan line which is conventional, should be swapped with more competent hands. In all games, particularly politics, second half is always a decisive moment and no good leader takes it for granted.
In the next two years, dividends of democracy ought to be obvious in the lives of the citizenry putting into consideration all the planning and notable actions embarked upon across the states alongside the Federal Government. Without a doubt, 2019 elections will preoccupy the minds, but there is no better way to strategise for overwhelming victory than meeting the targets of the electorate.
Umegboro, a public affairs analyst, lives in Abuja.
Carl Umegboro
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
