Opinion
Managing The Age Of Innocence
Adolescence is a Latin word which translates to “growing up”. It is therefore the transitional stage of physical and mental human development. This generally occurs between puberty and the legal age of adulthood, which runs from the age of 13 to 19.
Historically, puberty has been associated with teenagers and the onset of adolescent development, which ordinarily is the transition period from the age of innocence to the age of intuitive and intrinsic knowledge. But the start of puberty has, to a very large extent, witnessed increased pre-adolescent evolution, particularly in the female sex.
Consequently, the adolescent phase, in recent times, has had occasional extension beyond the teenage years, thus creating a sharp contrast with previous adolescent development processes, especially in males.
Indeed, to properly situate the issues and processes that take place during the transition phase from the age of innocence to the era of cognitive understanding and knowledge development, it is imperative to highlight the obvious indicators of progress from the stage of adolescence towards adulthood.
Interestingly, it is characterised by a number of cognitive, emotional, physical and attitudinal changes which could cause conflict in negative or positive character and or personality development. Simply put, with the hormonal fields which ebb and flow before and after the menarche, blending increasing knowledge development with parallel snap in information penetration and assimilation, including the orgy of misinformation inundated by peer group influence, the adolescent mind is perhaps, the most vulnerable and volatile parch of the human development process.
At this stage of transition, the adolescent emerges from the family-oriented, dependent figure with the tranquil, tabular rasa mind of childhood. The genuine sense of innocence of that phase naturally enters the era of knowledge, which is laced with frustration, competitiveness, and the trauma of adult life. A successful emergence of this unique aura demands the nurturing of that piquant period of maturity, which blends biologically, emotionally and socially to form the perfect adult.
To fuse this anatomy into a complete human being capable of understanding the intricate interplays which determine the direction towards order, peace, and development may not be easily appreciated until the various forces which play active roles in this process are acknowledged. The social institutions which wittingly and or unwittingly configure the perfect adolescent being are the family, church, school, peer group, work environment, and perhaps, the government.
First, let me take the formative role of the family, for instance. The friendly home environment and morally sound parents are necessary factors which ultimately inculcate positive behaviours and attitudes in the adolescent. It is not in doubt that adolescents who have parents with acceptable moral values, more often than not, end up developing near-perfect behaviours, values that are generally permissible, and robust cognitive and resilient knowledge base, which help to propel development across the board.
Besides, the parents take advantage of their intimacy to impart certain skills and knowledge into their adolescent children by giving them exemplary life-sustaining characters and qualities that would endear them positively to others. In the same manner, they teach their wards necessary and basic rudiments of life which should help build an adult whose contribution to national development would be a reference point for others.
Conversely, harsh, insecure, violent and or volatile home environment coupled with lack of positive values, humane behaviours and moral bankruptcy in parents largely promote adolescents with mostly negative risk factors. These include repulsive lifestyles such as early smoking, drinking, fighting and or violent habits, unprotected sex, and disrespect for elders and human lives generally leading to stealing, armed robbery, and other social vices.
These formative character impulses are naturally embedded and carried along in the development process. However, the church and school environment also play moderating roles in translating these influences into sustainable manifest human behaviours. The church, for example, helps to encourage swift and positive changes that could assist in remoulding the character and inner reasoning of the adolescents, if such negative values are discovered early enough. But this becomes difficult to manage if the parents are animists or atheists and, therefore, abhor nominal Christian values.
Interestingly, the school institution and peer groups also influence the adolescent’s upbringing greatly. This is because these intervening factors play sustained roles during the transitional phase of the adolescent to adulthood, and may continue to influence choices and decisions made for the rest of his or her life. The school, on its part, play critical role at the formative stage and promotes life-changing values, whether positive or negative in the adolescent.
On the other hand, the peer group elements, who could be intimate friends, share things in common with each other: they read together, eat together, go out together to class and any other place they may choose to go, and do many things together that their parents and teachers may not be privy to. The only moderating force at this stage is their instinct, which could positively or negatively mould their reasoning, actions or inactions.
It is perhaps necessary to point out that apart from the family, two key institutions which naturally should play moderating, reformatory and reintegrating roles in this melodrama are the work environment or labour institutions and governments at all levels. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the family bears the first brunt of the negative impact of the deviant adolescent-turned-adult. This is because the first enemy who feels the aggression is the immediate family before the entire nation.
I think, therefore, that the family must begin the job of mending the already bad case of a vagrant adolescent by intensifying the administration of corrective measures to encourage positive re-orientation, attitudinal and behavioural change. The family can as well co-opt the power of the church in ensuring the inculcation of positive moral and social values that collectively would help drive the course of society towards sustainable development.
In the same vein, private corporate institutions, non-governmental organisations, civil society groups, rights activists, public institutions, government agencies, departments and ministries can also play intervening roles in remoulding the character of the lost sheep, and reintegrating them into productive engines of growth for the nation. Methinks that if this clear synergy is achieved, the league of social miscreants and disgruntled elements who whittle down the impact of the ordered minds in securing social, economic and political development of Nigeria would be greatly reduced, if not clearly eliminated.
Tamunodiepiriye wrote from Port Harcourt.
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
