The confrontation between the powerful Minister of Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and naval officer Lieutenant Commander A.M. Yerima is one of Nigeria’s most topical public debates in recent times.
Video captured of the scene showed the minister storming a property site in Abuja, trading words with armed officers led by Lt. Yerima who had orders from their command not to allow anyone in.
The scene was a classical clash between civil authority and armed force, leaving opinions divided on the propriety of the actions of both sides.
To unpack the deeper issues, Signature TV sat down with Professor Chidi Anslem Odinkalu, an eminent scholar and Professor in Human Rights Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a former Chairman of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission.
His analysis is sharp, unsettling, deep and thought-provoking — a rare conversation that challenges how authority should be exercised in a democratic society.
The Interview
Q Professor, before we begin, why did you insist that both the minister and the officer be properly identified by name?
AnsFirst of all, I think it is important that we treat everyone equally in this conversation. If the minister has a name, then the officer involved should also have a name. The minister is Nyesom Wike. The officer is Lieutenant Commander A.M. Yerima. Every citizen is equal, and it is important to accord everyone that dignity.
Q You were quoted earlier on the legal issues. Could you break down what exactly transpired from a legal standpoint?
AnsPeople struggle with a basic idea: possession is an interest in property. If you are in possession of a piece of real estate, nobody has the right to use force to drag you out without a court order — including a minister.
There is also a very dangerous provision in Nigeria’s Constitution: Section 33(2)(a). Most people don’t read it. Section 33(1) guarantees the right to life, but Section 33(2) creates exceptions. Under 33(2)(a), a person can lawfully kill in defence of property when they are in possession, and someone tries by force to remove them. That provision has a colonial history dating back to when the right to property was elevated above the lives of colonised people.
So as a matter of law, not even a minister can walk into land and act without a court order.
Q Setting law aside for a moment, what do you make of the human and leadership implications of what we saw in the video?
AnsForget law — look at humanity and leadership. Count the number of guns in that clip. One wrong finger on a trigger and people could have died — including the minister himself.
The most charitable thing anyone can say is that the minister acted with absolute disregard for human life, including his own. He is lucky he met a young officer who was not trigger-happy. If anything had happened, the officer would still be alive and many people would defend him.
No minister is licensed to treat human life with such irresponsibility. Anyone who behaves with that level of reckless disregard is unfit to be a minister.
Q How does this clash between Wike and the military reflect deeper issues of impunity in Nigeria’s governance?
AnsDo you know how many ministers of the FCT we’ve had? The first was appointed in 1975. Since then, about 17 ministers — including military officers like Mamman Vatsa and Jeremiah Useni — have served.
None of them ever attempted the level of madness we saw here. Even soldiers in fatigues never presumed they could bulldoze or enforce land actions personally.
There are legal mechanisms for enforcement: staff do the work, and where there is resistance, you get a court order. Bailiffs, sheriffs and police enforce it. That is the lawful process.
Wike acted as if he is the law. He even claims to be a lawyer, a life bencher — part of the group responsible for discipline in the legal profession. Yet the behaviour in that clip is not something you would entrust even with disciplining maggots in a toilet.
Q Under the Land Use Act, does the minister have the authority to enter land in this manner?
AnsThe minister has powers — but only upon reasonable notice and at reasonable hours. Did he give notice? Did he give any notice at all? And what was the hour?
If he met resistance, he needed a court order. What he cannot do is insult a uniformed officer — calling him a fool — and diminish both his office and the uniform that represents the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
It was an act of utmost impunity for the minister to presume he could walk anywhere and do as he likes. That is what triggered the resistance.
Q Some argue the soldier should not have been guarding private property. What do you say to that?
AnsThat argument is simplistic. Abuja is military territory. It is protected by the Brigade of Guards, who guarantee the safety of the Commander-in-Chief.
Every soldier in Abuja enjoys a presumption of regular command. A soldier can be in a private residence performing official duties — because there may be operations or state assets there. A uniformed soldier in Abuja is on duty unless proven otherwise.
Wike did not have the humility to inquire. If he had produced a warrant or court order, my view would be different. But he did not. Ministers are subject to the law like everyone else.
Q We have seen the minister take land or demolish properties in the past. Why do you think he entered this particular property without a court order? Did he feel above the law?
AnsLet me ask you: have you ever heard of any of the 16 previous FCT ministers — or their junior ministers — walking into premises the way this man did? That answers your question.
Q From a legal point of view, where is the line between political immunity and outright lawlessness?
AnsNothing Wike does shocks me anymore. He has shown repeatedly that he is unfit for public office.
He is no longer a governor, so he has no immunity. The only people who enjoy constitutional immunity are the President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors. Judges enjoy limited immunity for acts done in the course of judicial duty. Nigerian diplomats enjoy immunity abroad, not at home.
Wike carries on not with immunity, but with impunity — behaving as though he is above the law. Nobody of significance has risen in his defence, because nobody can support a minister disgracing the authority of the Federal Republic in this manner. It is a firing offence.
Q You referenced Section 33(2)(a) of the Constitution, which allows lawful killing in defence of property. How does that apply here?
AnsIt is simple. Property has a contentious history in human rights because colonial systems valued property above the lives of colonised people.
The European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, protected property rights of Europeans — including in their colonies. Britain began testing this framework in Nigeria in 1959, and that is how the right to kill in defence of property entered our constitutional structure.
The Constitution still reflects that colonial hierarchy: property is sometimes valued above human life. They never expected the life endangered would be that of a minister behaving irresponsibly.
Under that provision, if you are in possession and someone forcibly tries to remove you without lawful reason or process, you can lawfully take their life and be protected. That should worry everyone — but that is the danger Wike invited.
I must commend Lieutenant Yerima for his professionalism. If he had behaved even a fraction like Wike, there would have been fatalities. No minister should abuse Nigerians, particularly those in uniform, the way he did.
Q Thank you, Professor for your insights.
AnsThank you.
Rate, Like 👍, Comment 💬, Share this article, Follow us on our social media handles, and Submit your own story to get featured and earn rewards!
WhatsApp Channel
Telegram Channel
