Opinion
Thoughts On Nigeria’s Restructuring
I am not surprised at the current widespread agitations for secession across the country. The gestures have always loomed the horizon of the country long ago.
Years of turmoils, claims and counter-claims of marginalization as well as vituperations, especially from stakeholders and former leaders, have already overstretched the feeble bond that holds the contradistinct nationalities in the country.
The exertions of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and those of the Arewa, Niger Delta and South West groups that once issued quit notices to people in parts of Nigeria are indeed unhealthy to the unity and peaceful co-existence of the country.
The name-calling and hate speeches are consternating as well. They can provide immediate occasions for crisis with attendant precipice reminiscent of the events that led to the 1966 military coup, the declaration of Biafra and the civil war. Heaven knows we cannot afford this now.
In successive years, the Biafra agitations have assumed all kinds of objectives. What began as a means of drawing the attention of the authorities to the negative plight of certain Nigerians, has suddenly metamorphosed into criminality, ethnocentrism and a political tool for self-aggrandizement.
The Igbos are not alone in the cry against injustice. Many other ethnic groups are sobbing against infringements, marginalization and acrimonious treatments. Sadly, these allegations of negligence have also permeated the various levels of political establishments.
The remissness is demonstrated in lopsided appointments, inequitable distributions of resources and unequal political representations. They have all become catalysts for upheavals which have been hijacked by opportunists. Yet, our leaders have failed to act, perhaps waiting for when the tantrums will become veritable threats to the country.
Rather than address the issues, politicians have hijacked it to score cheap political points for themselves and their people. Since solutions cannot come through this way, Nigerians have decided to agitate and in extreme cases, go violent.
Unfortunately, the despair has increased because successive governments have only paid lip service to the issues. It is poignant and, of course, distressing that calls to restructure the country as solutions to our numerous problems have not received attention from any government including the present administration which has true federalism in its manifesto.
Now, see how the solicitations have gone awry and dangerous. See how the country is bamboozled. I affirm the unity of Nigeria in spite of the obvious disorientation and I dissent completely from those who want the country disintegrated. But the indivisibility can only be made stronger when substantial steps are taken to engage the burning issues frazzling the country apart.
The time has come when we must diagnose our problems and confront them. Therefore, we have to dispassionately examine all the genuinely conceived and perceived agitations and address their concerns.
But as a very quick step, the Federal Government must deal with all hawkers of rancor, inciting and discordant messages. Remember, we had been martyrs of such dangerous trend in the past and shouldn’t wait until it gets out of hand.
Any action or pronouncement that endangers the existence of the country should not be tolerated. But Iasting solutions should be devised to contain all the apprehensions and agitations of the different groups in the country.
For this reason, we have to revisit the various reports and recommendations contrived on how to address the intractable problems that have always beleaguered our nation.
Yes, the Federal Government recognizes the numerous reports which address the structural and governance challenges of the country as far back as the 80s, with the most recent report of the 2014 National Conference. They have to be voraciously examined and enforced.
All the national dialogues have, in one way or the other, proposed ways of remodeling our federalism and deepening our democracy; so, the government cannot feign any excuses, rather, it can only draw from the proposals.
It is certainly critical for the government at the centre to heed the calls for the introduction of true federalism. Any attempt to restructure the country without it will render the entire reconstruction exercise inchoate because they go hand in hand.
However, one is not unmindful of the fact that the task is difficult. But with indubitable collaboration between our leaders and Nigerians, the enterprise can be accomplished.
Arnold Alalibo
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
