On Tuesday, 11th November 2025, the social media was abuzz with a highly controversial face-off between Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and a naval military officer. This officer, along with his team, was deployed to secure a parcel of land that became a point of contention when the Minister attempted to inspect it but was obstructed.
Conversations revealed that operatives of the Minister had faced repeated barriers in accessing the Gaduwa District land prior to Wike’s arrival to assert authority. Unfortunately, he was met with resistance; the soldier, claiming to act on orders, forcefully asserted his authority, even confronting the Minister’s security details. This clash highlighted a troubling dynamic between two strategic entities under the executive branch.
The aftermath of this incident has underscored a critical issue regarding the role of the Nigerian Army, particularly in situations that should fall within police or court’s jurisdiction. If soldiers are expected to safeguard our borders, defend the country against external aggression and internal insurrection, yet find themselves tasked with securing land or shielding powerful individuals from accountability, it raises questions about their true purpose. The viral video captured the Minister asserting, “Show me the documents you have. You have no documents. We cannot continue to act with such impunity,” and continued, “Where is the approval? This cannot go on. How is it that a man at his level cannot meet me, but instead sends soldiers to intimidate people? We are all from this country.”
These statements indicate Wike’s commitment to enforcing due process. If the military officer believed the land acquisition was legitimate, the onus was on him to provide supporting documentation. Instead, he appeared more intent on obstructing Wike, who is constitutionally empowered to act in the President’s capacity regarding critical executive powers with respect to the FCT. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) asserts this in Section 297:
“There shall be a Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the boundaries of which are defined in Part II of the First Schedule to this constitution.
The ownership of all lands comprised in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall vest in the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Section 18 of the FCT Act, CAP 59, further delineates the powers bestowed upon the FCT Minister:
“As from the 28th May, 1984, the President has delegated to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory the following functions that is to say:
Any function or power conferred on the Chairman of the Federal Capital Development Authority under this Act.
Any executive power of the Federal Government vested in the President pursuant to section 299(a) or any other section of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and exercisable within the Federal Capital Territory.”
In the same same vein, section 55 of the Land Use Act also vests the entire 8000 sq. km. in the Federal Capital Territory in the Minister.
By examining the various powers allocated to the FCT Minister, one might question whether a soldier, claiming to act under orders to protect land supposedly owned by the retired Chief of Naval Staff, is justified in opposing such authority. A more commendable display of bravery from the soldier and his colleagues would be to reject orders that undermine the sanctity of their role. It is disconcerting that our military often finds itself performing demeaning tasks—acting as orderlies or running errands for influential figures—while neglecting its core responsibilities.
Judicial precedent confirms that members of the Nigerian Army are not obligated to obey all orders, particularly unlawful ones. They have a duty to the country and to the Constitution to refuse orders that threaten to undermine its spirit. They are tasked with honoring the integrity of their profession by avoiding actions that trivialize its significance. The Supreme Court, in Onunze v. State (2023) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1885) 61 at 108 SC, emphasized, particularly through the witty submission of Ogunwumiju, JSC, thus:
“My Lords, the obligation to obey the orders of a superior does not include orders that are palpably illegal or manifestly unjust. Every military or police officer swears an oath upon commissioning. The oath is not to obey all orders; it is to ‘preserve’, ‘protect’, and defend the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When an officer obeys palpably illegal orders, they become personally liable for their actions and would be expected to face court martial or official sanction for the wrongdoing.
In this instance, the military officer’s actions undoubtedly fell short of the tenets articulated by the Supreme Court. Such instances do not bode well for our country, it is indirectly an attack on the office of the President and Grand Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, in light of an earlier pronouncement of the court in Pius Nwaogu v. The State (1972) 1 All NLR 149, that a soldier is bound to obey both Military and Civil Law and that it is monstrous for him to suppose that he is protected when the order is grossly and manifestly illegal.
Tunde Akingbondere, an author and law graduate, writes from Ondo State.
