Opinion
Which Way Nigeria?
Are there people who are not worried about the drums of war being beaten at different parts of the country? Perhaps, there are. But the truth is that there is fear and tension in the land.
The rumours of war and disaster circulating everywhere, especially on the social media, the hate and divisive speeches of people from the North, East, West and South and the constant agitations of various ethnic and religious groups are clear indications that all is not well with the country.
At a women’s meeting the other day, members were advised to start buying bags of salt and sending to their villages in readiness for an inevitable war. They were told stories of how salt prevented many people from going down with some deadly deceases during the Nigerian Civil War. Those that can afford it were asked to get their international passports and visas ready to enable them escape the looming and imminent danger. Obviously, many of the women were panicky. They wished something could be done by the government urgently to avert the calamity.
Fortunately, in what seemed to be an answer to desperate prayer of many helpless citizens, the Acting President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, after a meeting with Northern elders on Tuesday, warned that the Federal Government would deal with individuals or groups spreading hate speeches capable of affecting the unity of the country. Osinbajo who stressed the determination of government to foster the unity of the country, said the Federal Government would not allow such persons get away with their action.
Following that was a meeting between Osinbajo and South East leaders on Wednesday. The aim was to sue for peace and nip in the bud any crisis arising from the threat by Arewa youths that Igbos should leave the North before October 1, among other threats and counter threats. The Acting President assured Nigerians that the Federal Government was handling the issue holistically and that there was no cause for alarm.
Osinbajo’s action is indeed commendable. Disintegration cannot be the solution to the nation’s problem. As many notable people, both Nigerians and foreigners have stated, there is enormous gain in our togetherness as a nation. Our numerical strength is a great advantage.
All tribes whether major or minor are stakeholders in the Nigerian project. Therefore, we all stand to gain a lot as a united entity rather than breaking into minor entities. It is true that we have several issues to resolve as a nation but a working federation still remains our best bet.
Incidentally, what we practise in Nigeria today can hardly be termed a true, working federation. A situation where the Federal Government wields overwhelming power, controls the entire resources of the country and only dishes out crumbs to the states at its will looks more like a unitary government than a federal system.
Yes, we must remain as one indivisible entity but in doing so, the appropriate things need to be done. Regions or zones as they are called now, should be allowed to control their resources and pay royalty to the Federal Government as it is the practice in other countries.
In 2014, the then President, Goodluck Jonathan spent billions of Naira to organize a national constitutional conference. All the who is who in the country, the young , the old and people from all walks of life were part of that conference After months of deliberations, they came up with a report which was sent to the National Assembly to work on. Sadly, the report has not seen the light of the day.
One of the recommendations of the confab was restructuring which is believed to be a panacea to the barrage of problems facing the country. There have been calls from many prominent Nigerians and groups for the implementation of, at least, that portion of the report, all to no avail.
Is it not high time the Federal Government paid attention to these calls in the interest of the nation?
One will also suggest that apart from the meetings and consultations with leaders of various geo-political zones, government should also look into the root cause(s) of all the agitations. Many have blamed them on injustice, inequity and unfairness. Lack of these fundamental human principles is a crying evil which must be adequately addressed for peace to reign.
As it is said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Indeed, there is no perfect country or perfect person, but we can work hard to build a decent society where justice reigns.
Our leaders should listen to demands peacefully and not wait until those agitations resort to violence before attention is given to them. There is no doubt that if our leaders had adopted this method, many problems would have been avoided. A stitch in time, they say, saves nine.
Calista Ezeaku
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
