By
Nze David N. Ugwu
Introduction
In recent weeks a video has gone viral across Nigeria that crystallises for many the essence of what they call “Wikean terrorisation”—a crucible of power, intimidation and defiance. The central actors: Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and former Governor of Rivers State; and a relatively young naval officer, Lt. Ahmad M. Yerima (Navy), who stood his ground. The clash took place at Plot 1946, Gaduwa, Abuja, a parcel of land allegedly tied to a former Chief of Naval Staff.
The outburst by the minister—calling a serving officer “a fool”, insisting his own supremacy, threatening escalation—and the officer’s measured rebuttal (“I am not a fool, sir… I am acting on orders”) have triggered waves of commentary: veteran military officers are outraged, civil-society voices are alarmed, and social media is ablaze.
This episode begs a fundamental question: Has Wike’s reign of force and fear in Abuja met its match? More precisely, can this incident represent a turning point in how power is exercised by Ministers and how institutions respond? In what follows we examine the trajectory of Wike’s approach, the significance of the confrontation, what it might portend for institutional checks, and the broader implications for governance in Nigeria.
The Wike Phenomenon in the FCT — “Terrorisation” or Reform Driver?
When Wike moved from the governorship of Rivers (2015–2023) to become Minister of the FCT in August 2023 (under President Bola Tinubu), many saw it as a bold move by the federal government: a Southerner in what has often been a Northern-dominated slot.
In his time in the FCT, Wike has adopted a highly interventionist style: personally leading enforcement drives against illegal land development, demolitions, and infrastructure changes. Some citizens applaud his willingness to act; others decry what they view as heavy-handedness, bypassing due process, bullying opponents, and deploying the weight of office with scant regard for institutional boundaries.
Critics argue that Wike’s style amounts to “terrorisation” of residents, developers, party actors (notably within his old party, the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP), and even federal structures. They cite:
- Frequent public threats: “If you want to kill everybody, kill everybody” (as Wike told officers at the site).
- A pattern of dismissing subordinate or rival views, relying on his status as minister to define what is lawful.
- The erosion of bureaucratic procedure in favour of executive proclamations.
Supporters, in contrast, claim he is restoring order in the FCT, enforcing the Abuja Master Plan, and taking on entrenched land-grabbers, and therefore his strong style is justified. Yet even many of these supporters note the difference between firmness and verbal assault. The recent incident seems to have pushed critics into near-unison condemnation.
In short: Wike’s “terrorisation” is less about violent physical coercion and more about an unlikeness to civil governance: high-decibel threats, authoritative posture, personalising enforcement. Whether intended or not, the result has been a climate of fear and caution among developers, residents, and even political players.
The Gaduwa Confrontation — Power Meets Principle
The episode that captured national attention occurred on 11 November 2025. At Plot 1946 in Gaduwa, officials of the FCT Administration arrived to stop ongoing alleged illegal development. They were, according to reports, blocked by naval personnel guarding the site. Wike himself arrived on-site.
The key elements of the confrontation:
- Wike asserted that the land had no valid approval, the building lacked permit, and that the owner (linked to a former Chief of Naval Staff) was using military muscle to intimidate the FCTA inspectors.
- Lt Yerima held his ground: wearing naval uniform, he responded respectfully but firmly that he had orders, that the acquisition was legal. “I am an officer… I am not a fool, sir.”
- Wike shouted, “You are a fool! As at the time I graduated you were still in primary school!”
- The exchange ended without violence but left a legacy of images: a minister shouting and a uniformed officer calmly asserting dignity and process.
- In the aftermath, the Minister of Defence publicly backed the officer; military veterans demanded an apology from Wike; social commentators hailed the officer’s composure, even if they remained critical of his presence there.
Why is this moment so significant? Because for once the man who rarely meets push-back faced a counter-balance: not simply political opposition, but a uniformed officer, backed by institutional loyalty, refusing to cower. The posture shifted from admiration/fear of Wike’s force to admiration for the officer’s principle.
This suggests a crack in the aura of invincibility. When the power-centre itself (the minister) is publicly opposed with dignity and process, the symbolic landscape changes. And that may matter more than the outcome of who wins the specific land dispute.
Has the Terror Met Its Match? Indicators for Change
So, has Wike’s phenomenon been checked or restrained by this incident? In short: not fully—but the foundations for change are visible. Consider these indicators:
- a) Public opinion and media spotlight
The confrontation ignited a rare form of public scrutiny around Wike’s style—not just political opponents, but military veterans and civic society are speaking out. The wider broadcast of the incident shows that his method may no longer operate in a vacuum. - b) Institutional push-back
That the Ministry of Defence publicly defended the officer signals that the security establishment will not allow intimidation of its personnel. That is a significant line in the sand. Militaries are often deferential to political office; when they resist publicly, it matters. - c) The cost of spectacle
Wike’s performance—yelling insults, threatening violence—was widely perceived as unbecoming. This may increase a future cost to such tactics: not only reputational, but possibly procedural (investigations, internal discipline). - d) Reinforcement of rules over personalities
Yerima’s refrain—“I am acting on orders, sir; I am an officer with integrity”—evokes institutional norms resisting personalised power. That helps anchor hope that the “system” still has some resilience.
Therefore: the “match” may not yet have knocked Wike off the field, but it has entered into the game. The ability to instil fear and override peers and institutions may now face growing resistance.
Why Wike Remains a Potent Force
However, it would be premature to declare victory or the end of the “Wike era” of intimidation. Several factors sustain his power:
- Institutional backing: as Minister of FCT, Wike controls significant federal resources, land-release powers, and bureaucratic levers.
- Political network: he retains deep ties in the PDP, among Southern political players, and has established a modus operandi of direct action, demolitions, and theatre.
- Media savvy/visibility: Wike uses high-drama, public enforcement to signal both action and presence. For many, this projects strength.
- Weakness of checks: despite the militarily-backed resistance, many of the mechanisms that hold a minister to account (party discipline, legislative oversight, independent investigations) remain weak or sluggish in Nigeria’s system.
- Public appetite for ‘strongman’ governance: For a segment of the populace frustrated with land-grabbers, illegal building, enforcement anarchy, a minister who hits hard is appealing—even if the methods are heavy-handed.
In short, the structural and political foundations of Wike’s power remain largely intact, even if his tactics may be under new scrutiny.
What Happens Next? Scenarios and Implications
Given the above, what are possible trajectories from here—and what do they imply for governance and rule-of-law in Nigeria?
Scenario 1: The “soft check” deepens
The incident becomes a reference point. Wike may moderate his language and tactics slightly, aware of reputational cost and institutional push-back. Other ministers and officials observe the backlash and adopt more cautious public demeanour. Land enforcement continues, but with less brazen theatrics.
Implication: incremental strengthening of norms, though the power structure remains largely unchanged.
Scenario 2: The “counter-force” escalates
Military veterans, civic groups and anti-corruption actors leverage the incident into investigations—land-title audits, ministerial oversight hearings, Senate inquiries. Wike faces formal questions on style, procedure and propriety.
Implication: power shifts become possible; ministers become more accountable and institutions gain credence.
Scenario 3: Status quo with occasional flare-ups
Wike reverts to business as usual: occasional outbursts, tactical enforcement, strong-man posture. The Gaduwa incident becomes a media moment but not a structural rupture.
Implication: the pattern persists; citizens remain wary; fear remains part of the calculus of governance.
Which seems most likely? Given the current dynamics—visible push-back, continuing Wike dominance—it seems Scenario 1 is the most probable in the near term. But the presence of indicators for Scenario 2 is significant: if institutions choose to lean in, the ground could shift.
However, the Presidency is yet to react to the situation. Wike seems to have a very strong hold on Tinubu. No minister in Tinubu’s administration has displayed impunity like Wike. He is the untouchable. He has gotten away with who no other minister could get away with, including his wife’s dual citizenship, allegations of fraudulent property ownership in the United States, allocation of revoked lands in Abuja to himself, his children and cronies and his involvement in the Rivers State emergency rule. In all these allegations, the President has not reprimanded Wike, which confirms the allegation that Wike has a strong hold on the President.
Broader Lessons for Nigerian Governance
While the article is titled around Wike, the Gaduwa face-off offers broader lessons:
- Power and accountability: High office confers power—but without corresponding checks, abuse of temperament becomes likely. The incident reminds us that even ministers can be challenged if institutional norms hold.
- Role of military in civil matters: The involvement of serving naval personnel in guarding disputed private land raises uncomfortable questions about militarisation of property disputes. It triggers debate on civil-military balance.
- Public leadership demeanour: Wike’s escalation through insults and threats not only degrades the office but undermines public trust. Leadership is as much about tone as it is about mandate.
- Symbolism matters: The fact that this young officer became a national hero of sorts (praised by journalists, veterans) shows how individual acts of integrity can resonate and shift public narratives.
- Future of enforcement culture: If governance is to move from ad-hoc, personalised enforcement to rule-based action, incidents like this matter. They offer teachable moments for bureaucrats, ministers and the public alike.
Conclusion
So, has the “Wikean terrorisation” met its match? The answer is a qualified yes in symbolic terms—and a not yet in structural terms. The showdown between Wike and Lt Yerima has exposed cracks in what once seemed unassailable power. It has shown that even in Nigeria’s super-charged political environment, one individual’s calm adherence to duty can stand up to a minister’s roar.
Whether this becomes a turning point depends on what follows: will Wike face any institutional consequence, will the military and civil-society actors persist in pressing the matter, will other ministers take heed of the cost? If yes, then this moment may turn into a watershed where intimidation-by-office begins to lose its impunity. If no, then it remains a symbolic skirmish in a wider war of personalities and power.
For the citizens of Abuja, for the institutions of Nigeria, and for the credibility of governance, the hope is that this incident becomes the beginning of a shift away from fear-based control toward respect-based authority. But in politics as in life: hope without follow-through is fragile.
Nze David N. Ugwu is the Managing Consultant of Knowledge Research Consult. He could be reached at [email protected] or +2348037269333.
