Helen Okechukwu and Fatimah Idera
A Nigerian legal practitioner, Mr Cyril Oyiboka, has offered fresh insights into the legal and constitutional implications surrounding the controversial land dispute between the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and a former military officer, calling out both parties for breaching proper procedure and escalating tensions in Abuja.
New Daily Prime earlier reported that the Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike, clashed with a naval officer, Lieutenant A. Yerima, over alleged land grabbing in Abuja’s Gaduwa district.
The issue has generated widespread controversy among Nigerians, including political gladiators, who describe it as needless and avoidable if it had been properly handled.
Speaking during an interview with our correspondent, Cyril, a legal practitioner in Rivers State with 23-year experience reiterated that land ownership in the FCT requires strict compliance with formal documentation through the FCTA, after acquisition from native owners.
According to him, the disputed plot lacked the required approvals and was designated for use as a green area for recreational purposes.
Read Also: Matawalle faults Wike over clash with naval officer, says dispute avoidable
He faulted the administration for resorting to what he described as self-help despite issuing a stop-work notice.
“If you discover the person is flouting, the proper thing for the FCTA to do is not to go clapping hands or resort to self-help. They ought to have gone with the available facts to a court, get a court order. Now, under a court order, they can come to that place and take any necessary action,” he said.
“But what they did was something to self-help. They were the prosecutors, they were the judges, they were the ones who wanted to now implement their judgments. It doesn’t happen that way.”
On his part, the military officer, despite being issued a stop-work directive, failed to seek clarification or approval from relevant FCTA officials. Instead, he acted on the authority of a former Chief of Naval Staff, sparking broader concerns about military interference in civil matters.
“The minister came there not as Wike, but as the President’s representative. A disrespect to the minister is an affront on the President,” the lawyer noted.
“The Chief of Naval Staff is below the President. His tenure ended with a single letter from the President. It is only going to take a coup for a military general or whoever to be able to now say they want to remove a sitting democratic president..”
Officer ‘acted illegally but under authority’
Addressing whether the military officer could be held liable for obeying instructions from a retired superior officer, Cyril explained that the soldier’s actions, though illegal under civil law, stemmed from the hierarchical structure of the military.
“The order that was given to him was from the ex-chief of Naval’s staff, that is, a higher-ranking officer who is even higher than even the serving chief of defense staff right now, or chief of Naval’s staff. His position as a soldier remains always as a soldier. His details will recognize his authority to the latter,” he stated.
He added that while the property being protected was private and not a military installation, the chain of command still influenced the officer’s behaviour.
“If there’s anybody to be penalized, it would be the chief of Nava’a staff, not the Yerima. The Naval’a chief has sent him to protect my property, and that he has done to the best of his ability.”
Read Also: “I will continue to respect all government institutions” — Wike
However, he criticised the officer’s exchange with FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, saying he had no legal or moral right to bandy words with a serving minister acting in the capacity of the President’s representative.
Wike overstepped his bounds
Reacting to the widely circulated video showing the minister using harsh language during the confrontation, the legal expert admitted that Wike’s conduct was also inappropriate.
“The minister also overstepped his boundaries. Even if it wasn’t a military man, he does not have the right to use abusive language,” the expert said.
“As a minister of the Federal Republic, he also breached some of the codes for which he ought to function. He ought to operate within a certain decorum. Even the President does not have the right to insult citizens.”
He stressed that public officers owe citizens respect, not intimidation, adding that the minister’s behaviour breached the ethical standards expected of his office.
‘Militarising the System’
The lawyer warned that the entire scenario risked undermining democratic principles by giving undue weight to military influence in a purely civil matter.
He noted that the minister, representing the President, holds higher constitutional authority than any retired service chief, and that disregard for this hierarchy threatens public order.
He emphasised on the necessity of due process and the rule of law, stating that neither military status nor political authority should override established legal procedures in the Federal Capital Territory.
Rule of Law in Question
Speaking further on the implications of the confrontation, Cyril said the incident paints a troubling picture of declining institutional respect and a breakdown in adherence to the rule of law in Nigeria.
“As it were, we don’t have any rule of law to a large extent from the way it has operated right now,” he said.
“The military is not afraid or does not respect the politicians. Politicians, on their own aspect, do not also respect the military. They have bastardised the respect that the military has all this while by using them to do menial jobs and all dirty kinds of jobs.”
He noted that this erosion of institutional boundaries is what emboldened a civilian minister to use harsh language on a uniformed officer, behaviour he described as unacceptable.
According to him, both sides acted outside the law, “The military officers, the external chiefs, also decided to use the powers of a naval chief to operate. So, you cannot see that everybody is actually operating under self-help.”
“They went for self-help. Nobody is applying the law,” he lamented, adding that the culture of disregarding court rulings, intimidating judges and ignoring legal processes is becoming pervasive across government institutions.
On whether there are legal or disciplinary consequences for the minister’s direct confrontation with the uniformed officer, Mr Cyril explained that any review of the soldier’s conduct would fall under military jurisdiction through a special or general court martial.
However, when it comes to the minister, “It only takes the President to take any decisive action against such a minister,” he stated.
“I’m not sure any other person has the powers to call him to order, aside from the president. The military cannot take any action against him, and that is the position.”
He emphasised that the civilian minister holds superior constitutional authority, but must exercise that authority responsibly and within the decorum expected of public office.
