₦airaland Forum

melechpilusof:
Nigerians are TOO SIMPLE minded to comprehend complicated issues like this.

Na low IQ. Then no go understand

ALTERNATEID:
Well said by the senior advocate. It’s good that very knowledgeable lawyers are coming out to quickly attack the ignorant views that a lot of people have shared on the matter.

One of my biggest shock yesterday was reading the opinion of Fergie001 on the matter. I pointed out the exact sections of the constitution that the SAN referenced in this piece in my response to fergie but he quickly disappeared from the thread and failed to respond.

It’s just unfortunate that people can’t put aside their emotions when reacting to issues. How can military officers be deployed to obstruct FCT officials from carrying out their duties? How can soldiers be deployed to protect the personal construction site of a retired officer? How can a soldier block the Minister of FCT from accessing land vested in him by law?

I still don't understand how Nigerians think. The officer and the commanding officer and commanding officer are clearly on the wrong.

mascot87:
Don't mind those clowns supporting nonsense because they hate Wike. So if a senior ranking officer gives an order to kpai there agalu fraud tomorrow and the order was well executed, hope they will support the executioner as only following orders.

I don't like Wike. But he's right on this one. I'm surprised that the brains of majority of Nigerians cannot process this simple matter. No wonder we are underdeveloped.

FreeStuffsNG:
https://punchng.com/naval-officer-in-face-off-with-wike-breached-the-law-san/

Correct!

I disagree with Rufai on this one

The average IQ of Nigerians is low. Even AI is more intelligent.

Go to Grok, Claude, Gpt 5 and get a non biased answer to the Wike issue.

Politicstoday:
Section 218 of the 1999 constitution(as amended):

A Minister in Nigeria(Wike for instance) does not have the right to command a soldier.

Constitutional & Legal Basis Under Section 218 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended):

Exclusive Command Authority:
🚨The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, has the sole power to determine the operational use of the armed forces and to appoint senior officers.
No Ministerial Command Over Soldiers:

The Minister of Defence (or any other minister) is a civilian political head of the ministry. Their role is policy formulation, administration, and oversight—not operational command.
Chain of Command:
Operational orders to soldiers flow only from the President Chief of Defence Staff Service Chiefs Commanders in the field.

A minister cannot issue direct orders to troops.

Hope you learn something

So if a general is owing NEPA bill now, he may decide to order his officers to prevent NEPA from disconnecting his light just because he's a general? And we would justify his order because of the Army chain of command or whatever? Why are we so foolish in this country?

Modified: the post I quoted was removed.


I'll address the substance while setting aside the personal comments.

On Military Command:
If retired generals' commentary supports this situation, please share those sources. I'm genuinely open to reading them.
However, the core issue here isn't purely military protocol - it's constitutional law. This was a civilian land administration matter in the FCT, not a military operation.

The Real Questions:
Does the property have valid FCT documentation? (Wike claims no)
Should soldiers guard private property disputes?

Can military force block government officials from enforcing planning laws?
Bottom Line:
In a democracy, civilian constitutional authority prevails in civilian matters. That's not about military expertise - it's a fundamental democratic principle.

SisterAnn:
In your warped write up, you said Wike called the military hierarchy who assured him the matter would be settled amicably. Why did he call them if he wasn't going to take their advice?

You also kept saying former this and former that, thereby implying that the former somebody has no right issuing any order to the soldier that stood his ground. This exposed your lack of knowledge.

FYI, your boss has no right to verbally or physically assault you over perceived wrongdoing, there are channels approved to take care of insubordination otherwise, you have every right to sue him for human rights infringement.

Lastly, only a fuuul argues with a man with a gun. If Wike had taken his verbal assault to another level, there's no telling how the abused may resort to defend himself.

Comparing this matter with Inec matter is completely off grid.

Please engage me intellectually. No name calling, please.

I appreciate you engaging with the analysis. Let me address your points:

On Calling the Military Hierarchy:
Wike called the CDS and CNS to report the issue through proper channels AND to continue exercising his constitutional duty. Calling them doesn't mean he should abandon his authority or walk away from illegal development. That's exactly what proper procedure looks like - engaging both his own authority and the military hierarchy to resolve it.

On "Former" Military Officers:
This isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a critical legal distinction. A retired or former Chief of Naval Staff has NO command authority over active duty soldiers. Military command authority comes from current appointment, not past rank. If former officers could still give orders to active soldiers, you'd have chaos with multiple chains of command. The soldier should have been taking orders from his current commanding officers, not a retired admiral protecting private property.

On Verbal Assault and Proper Channels:
You're right that there are proper channels for addressing issues. But who violated proper channels first? The soldiers blocking a minister from performing constitutional duties, or the minister confronting them about it? If the former CNS had an issue with the stop-work order, the proper channel was to approach the FCT Ministry with his documentation, not deploy soldiers to block government officials.

On "Arguing With a Man With a Gun":
This statement actually proves the problem. If civilian authorities can't perform their duties because soldiers with guns can intimidate them, then we're essentially under military rule. Democracy means civilian authority isn't silenced just because someone has a weapon. Otherwise, any property owner with military connections could use armed force to ignore the law.

On the INEC Comparison:
The comparison is valid. Both scenarios involve military forces potentially obstructing constitutional civilian authorities from performing their legal duties. If soldiers can block the FCT Minister from enforcing planning laws, why couldn't they block INEC from conducting elections? Same principle of civilian authority.

Bottom Line:
Nobody is above the law, including former military chiefs and armed soldiers.

Iagos:
Don't abuse me. It's obvious you don't understand democratic principles.
That was Wike's jurisdiction. He's constitutionally empowered to do his job as the Minister of FCT. The Constitution supersedes any army general's order. He didn't visit a war zone or an army barracks. We are not under military rule.
Wike followed authority granted by the Constitution empowering him to administer FCT. The issue on the ground was not in the purview of the army; hence, the General or whosoever is bound to obey constituted authority. The army hierarchy has its own authority spelt out by the Constitution. If Wike had contravened that authority, he would be guilty. What if a general orders the army to disrupt an ongoing election against the directive of INEC, would that still be justified by saying army orders must be obeyed?

You may argue about Wike's confrontational manner, but he was right on point. The general and army officers were guilty.

SisterAnn:
I apologize on behalf of the Op who's obviously not well exposed. Else, he won't be saying former this and former that.

And he has the temerity to call his Ill informed opinion a full analysis. 😬

Don't abuse me. It's obvious you don't understand democratic principles.
That was Wike's jurisdiction. He's constitutionally empowered to do his job as the Minister of FCT. The Constitution supersedes any army general's order. He didn't visit a war zone or an army barracks. We are not under military rule.
Wike followed authority granted by the Constitution empowering him to administer FCT. The issue on the ground was not in the purview of the army; hence, the General or whosoever is bound to obey constituted authority. The army hierarchy has its own authority spelt out by the Constitution. If Wike had contravened that authority, he would be guilty. What if a general orders the army to disrupt an ongoing election against the directive of INEC, would that still be justified by saying army orders must be obeyed?

That was Wike's jurisdiction. He's constitutionally empowered to do his job as the Minister of FCT. The Constitution supersedes any army general's order. He didn't visit a war zone or an army barracks. We are not under military rule.
Wike followed authority granted by the Constitution empowering him to administer FCT. The issue on the ground was not in the purview of the army; hence, the General or whosoever is bound to obey constituted authority. The army hierarchy has its own authority spelt out by the Constitution. If Wike had contravened that authority, he would be guilty. What if a general orders the army to disrupt an ongoing election against the directive of INEC, would that still be justified by saying army orders must be obeyed?

Fellow Nairalanders, the internet has been buzzing since this morning over the dramatic confrontation between FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and soldiers at a property in Gaduwa, Abuja. Let me break down what really happened and analyze who was right.

WHAT HAPPENED

On Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Minister Wike led FCTA officials to inspect a land in Gaduwa when armed soldiers blocked them from entering. The property is allegedly linked to former Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Awwal Zubairu Gambo.

The confrontation got heated! The minister shouted, one officer told him "I will not shut up," and Wike called the soldier "a very big fool." The soldier kept repeating "I am not a fool sir, I am acting on orders."

WIKE'S POSITION

According to the FCT Minister:
- The property has NO valid title documents
- There are NO proper building approvals from FCTA
- Development Control officials were chased away by armed soldiers when they tried to enforce a stop-work order
- He had already directed that work should stop on the plot
- He spoke with the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Naval Staff who assured him the matter would be resolved amicably

Wike's question: "How can someone who held such high office not come to my office to explain his situation but instead use soldiers to intimidate people?"

THE SOLDIERS' POSITION

The military officers claimed:
- They were acting on orders (from the former Chief of Naval Staff)
- Everything was acquired legally
- One officer insisted he was "an officer with integrity"
- They refused to budge despite the minister's threats

WHO WAS RIGHT? MY ANALYSIS

On the Land Issue:
If truly no proper FCT documentation exists (as Wike claims), then the minister is right to enforce planning regulations. No one should be above the law, military or civilian. However, the soldiers claim everything was legal - so the truth depends on whether proper documentation exists.

On the Officer's Conduct:
This is where e shock me! Was the officer right to engage a minister like that?

MY HONEST ANSWER: NO!

Here's why:
1. The soldiers were taking orders from a FORMER Chief of Naval Staff (retired officer), not their current chain of command
2. They were blocking a serving civilian government minister from performing official duties
3. The confrontational manner (arguing back, refusing orders) violated military discipline
4. In a democracy, military must be subordinate to civilian authority

Yes, soldiers should follow orders, but these orders came from a retired official, not their current commanders. The proper thing would have been to respectfully state their position while deferring to civilian authority, or let current military leadership resolve the issue through proper channels.

THE BIG QUESTIONS FOR NAIRALAND:

1. Should a former Chief of Naval Staff be using soldiers to guard private property?
2. Is this not abuse of military privilege?
3. Why didn't the former CNS approach the FCT Minister's office officially if he had legitimate documents?
4. Should the soldier be dismissed for insubordination?
5. Who truly owns this land legally?

Some politicians are already calling for the soldier's dismissal. The CDS and CNS have promised to resolve the matter amicably.

What do you think, Nairalanders? Who was right? Should the soldier be punished or praised for standing his ground?

Drop your comments below!

CC: NLFPMOD

Bullman:
After living in the Gambia for three years , I am getting Married to my best friend from bissau, she lives and work in the Gambia .. my introduction was last week , and I was given a list of things to buy for the traditional wedding ..

the only expensive thing on the list is a PIG
Everything in total no reach 350k in naira .
Sometimes you can’t help but wonder why everything in Nigeria is done extra extra .

Wife to be said she wants to take up 40% of the expenses.( I am far from broke ooo and she knows) To my single brothers you should try and date women from other African countries . Weytin wuna de endure for relationship for Nigeria no be life oooo.

I'll extend my search to other African countries

Hmm! Is he wanted for the alleged coup or is this a diversion?

Terrorists are not killed in Nigeria. They are forgiven and de-radicalised. That's the word used

Jakumo:
Kanu will be tried and jailed 40 years for instigating murder AND for using donated funds to arm an illegal civilian militia that has killed Igbo people by the score.

Cannot be proved. But meanwhile we have pictures of northern politicians and security agencies with armed militia doing business.

Ghen Ghen. Cc. Trump, UN, EU

This religion sef. I taya o.

Automobile nko?

As Grok, my "view" on the best presidents (or heads of state, including military rulers) of Nigeria is informed by a non-partisan analysis of historical records, public opinion polls, expert assessments, and key achievements like economic growth, anti-corruption efforts, democratic transitions, infrastructure development, and national unity. Nigeria's leadership history is complex, with only a handful consistently praised—many rulers faced criticism for corruption, authoritarianism, or economic mismanagement. Since the country has had 16 heads of state from 1960 to now (2025), ranking a "top 10 best" means including some with mixed legacies, but I'll prioritize those with net positive impacts based on available data. This is subjective and debatable; metrics like GDP growth, poverty reduction, and security improvements heavily influence my ranking.

Here's my ranked list of the top 10 best, focusing on their most notable contributions (and brief criticisms for balance):

1. Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007, civilian; also 1976–1979 military)
Widely regarded as the most impactful for stabilizing democracy post-military rule, securing massive debt relief (reducing external debt from $36B to $3.6B), boosting GDP growth to 6-7% annually, and reforming telecoms and banking sectors.
His military term also saw a peaceful handover to civilians. Criticisms: Alleged election rigging and human rights issues.

2. Umaru Musa Yar'Adua (2007–2010)
Often hailed for integrity, admitting his own election flaws, pushing electoral reforms, and the Niger Delta amnesty program that curbed militancy and stabilized oil production. His short tenure emphasized rule of law and transparency.
Health issues limited broader reforms.

3. Murtala Muhammed (1975–1976, military)
Remembered for bold anti-corruption purges, firing thousands of corrupt officials, and assertive foreign policy supporting African liberation. His decisiveness inspired hope, despite a very short rule ended by assassination. Authoritarian methods were a downside.

4. Goodluck Jonathan (2010–2015)
Oversaw strong economic growth (Nigeria became Africa's largest economy in 2014), agricultural reforms boosting food production, and infrastructure like railways and power projects. He conceded defeat in 2015, strengthening democracy.
Criticisms: Widespread corruption scandals and Boko Haram insecurity.

5. Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998–1999, military)
Crucial for orchestrating a swift transition to civilian rule in 1999 after Abacha's death, releasing political prisoners, and setting up elections. His brief, stabilizing role prevented chaos.

6. Shehu Shagari (1979–1983)
First elected president under the Second Republic, focused on education (building universities) and housing programs. His administration promoted national unity post-civil war, though marred by corruption allegations leading to a coup.

7. Nnamdi Azikiwe (1963–1966)
Symbolic first president after independence, advocating for unity and pan-Africanism. As a ceremonial figure, he represented hope for a new nation, but political instability led to the first coup.

8. Yakubu Gowon (1966–1975, military)
Led during the civil war (1967–1970), maintaining Nigeria's unity with the "no victor, no vanquished" policy for reconciliation. Post-war reconstruction and oil boom era brought infrastructure growth, but human rights abuses during the war tarnish his legacy.

9. Muhammadu Buhari (2015–2023, civilian; also 1983–1985 military)
Anti-corruption drives recovered billions in looted funds, and security efforts against Boko Haram reduced their territory. Infrastructure like roads and rails advanced. However, economic recession, inflation, and insecurity persisted, making his ranking lower.

10. Bola Tinubu (2023–present)
Early reforms like fuel subsidy removal and tax changes aimed at fiscal stability, with some GDP growth reported by 2025. Investments in tech and agriculture show promise. But high inflation, protests, and policy implementation issues limit his standing so far—too early for a full assessment.

Notable exclusions: Rulers like Sani Abacha (brutal dictatorship), Ibrahim Babangida (annulled elections, corruption), and Ernest Shonekan (short, ineffective interim) rank among the worst in most analyses.

Then why did Buhari snap pictures with the notes smiling?

.

90 percent of Nigerians are guilty of this

Tinnnuuuuuuu

She's just passing by and she decided to give 1k each to people that hailed her. It's her personal money not state money.

I don't see anything wrong here

Okortor:
Obviously TINUBU will win come 2027 with this Edo's outcome.. Nigerians are too gullible. Thank God for visa sponsorship programs to Australia..no time for nonsensical political game

Abeg link me up too nah

Softmirror:
😂😂😂😂 See dis poor loser.

Snap picture of yourself let's compare. Let's see who's the loser.

Softmirror:
Poor loser. Hahahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

How am i a loser when I'm not from edo?
Wetin concern me? If them like, they can elect an imbercile as their governor. It's not my business. But i know for sure because the APC man promised to bring insecurity 🤣🤣

chemex002:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Y61aPCEp4

Watch and see how insecurity will increase in Edo state