Opinion
Understanding Separatist Ideology
Apartheid policy as practised in old South Africa, though defunct, derived from the separatist ideology, which is a valid worldview that demands some explanation. As a worldview, separatist ideology is an attempt to apply, translate and practicalise in human settings a natural law which demands hierarchical groupings of species in homogeneous order for the purpose of harmony and mutual interactions.
Despite the wide diversities we find in nature, we also observe an intelligent ordering, such that unity and beauty come about through mutual interactions. Similarly, development and progress come about when species are allowed to grow and blossom in their natural habitat or ethic environment. When human beings fail to allow themselves to be guided by the eternal wisdom of nature, then distortions, aberrations and ill health are brought about. Nature is a great educator!
Ranging from marriages, political groupings, to other relationships and interactions, being “unevenly yoked together” is a foundation for failure. We must admit that there are fundamental differences and inequalities among human beings and that individuals feel more at home among their own kinds. The similarities or homogeneity may be in the state of maturity, mind-set, perception, etc
The observable and distinct differences which we find among human beings are not arbitrary or without purposes, neither can we ignore such differences without paying some penalty. Is culture not the pure and distinctive extracts of the unique lines of development and experiences of human groups and races? Even if we imitate others, yet, we cannot and should not deny ourselves.
Every race or group has a unique and exclusive foundation which forms the starting point of advancement and interactions with others. When such foundation is not taken into consideration in the course of mutual interactions, the result is usually friction which can lead to more serious conflicts and animosities.
Unity is not the same thing as uniformity, rather, the beauty of unity lies in harmonious interactions based on mutual understanding and respect for the uniqueness of others. Thus the best way to approach and get along with any one or group is to begin from that point of a smooth opening to link and unite with the other.
The Jewish Torah admonishes that no one should allow himself to become a door-mat for others to trample upon. Similarly, no self-respecting group should allow the influence of a prevailing culture to make such group to forsake its values. Holding on to yourself and what values you inherit is a defining principle of individual personality.
World history shows that human beings have failed to heed the warning against depriving others of their individual identity and unique ways of finding happiness, so long as they do not cause injuries to others. In our intolerance and conceit, we tend to believe that others must be like us, or see and do things the same way we do. To introduce uniformity in human settings, choices and perceptions, is to be guilty of dictatorship, which often results in frictions among human groups.
Nation-building demands that already existing foundations must form the basis of mutual interactions, without destroying one, to support another. It is the ability to manage and strengthen diversities and differences rather than widen them for political purposes, which makes an astute statesman. It is not in vain that there is an idiom of birds of same feather flocking together. That idiom expresses a law that affects human relationships.
Wherever there is a thoughtless grouping together of people who do not share common identities, frictions usually arise in the future. But for political and economic purposes such uneven grouping of people take place, especially where there is some hidden motive of parasitism. Groups that benefit from parasitic political arrangements would hardly allow a restructuring that would change such arrangement. What comes next would be unending agitations and insecurity.
Those who seek for separation from where they feel marginalized and exploited usually have some strong moral justification for their demand, if they do not go about it in a violent way. Suppression is as unnatural as oppression is a political tool to deal with demands for separation. But the price for suppression and oppression can also entail some unexpected surprises.
There is a valid concept of Positive Discrimination which stipulates that it is wrong to retard the progress of a fast runner or pollute what is pure in an effort to create an “egalitarian” society. Inequalities would always be there among humans, the same way that abilities differ widely among individuals. But it is unethical and retrogressive to suppress one man’s ability in an attempt to boost the competence of another.
Instead of various individuals and groups working together mutually for the good of humanity generally, what we find is a ruthless struggle for political and economic exploitation of one group or nation by another. Progress shows itself in the improvement of what already exists, rather than suppress what someone else has, or ignore the ability of another. Development is a continuous process whereby lapses and deficiencies must be recognized and addressed, not spread.
Dr. Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.
Bright Amirize
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
