When two authorities squabble: Breaking down the legality of the Wike–Yerima clash

The incident

On Monday, a video went viral on social media platforms in Nigeria. The video showed Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, arriving at a construction site in Abuja. A naval lieutenant, A. M. Yerima, who had been posted to guard the site, told the minister he could not enter. Wike insisted he had statutory control over all land in the capital. Yerima replied that he was under orders to “secure the site.” Neither man produced a written warrant. A heated exchange followed.

The legal background

Land

Land administration in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Land Use Act. Section 1 of the Act vests all land in each state in the Governor, to be held in trust for the people, except land vested in the Federal Government or its agencies. In the case of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), these powers are exercisable by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Also, sections 297(2) and 302 of the 1999 Constitution place all FCT land in the hands of the President. The President has delegated day-to-day management to the FCT Minister. In law, therefore, Wike speaks with the President’s voice on land matters.

Soldiers

Sections 23–26 of the Armed Forces Act provide that every commissioned officer derives authority from the President through the service chiefs. An officer who disobeys a lawful command can be charged with insubordination or mutiny. Equally, section 114 of the same Act makes it a civil offence to “obstruct a public officer in the execution of his duty.” A soldier who exceeds his orders enjoys no automatic immunity.

The Constitution

Section 1(3) states that any act inconsistent with the Constitution is void. The Supreme Court has held (Onunze v. State (2023); Nigerian Air Force v. James (2002)) that obedience to superior orders is not a defence if the order is “palpably illegal or manifestly unjust.”

What each side argues

Wike’s position

– The minister is the President’s statutory delegate on land. Obstructing him is obstructing the President, the constitutional Commander-in-Chief.

Yerima therefore risked liability under section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and could also be prosecuted in the Federal High Court for obstructing a public officer.

Yerima’s position

He was posted by a superior officer and had no written instruction to withdraw. Under section 24 of the Armed Forces Act he must obey “every lawful command.”

– If he had abandoned his post he could have been court-martialled for dereliction. He did not use force; he simply denied entry pending confirmation from above.

Expert commentary

Lucky Irabor, former Chief of Defence Staff:

“The uniform represents the authority of the state. When a commissioned officer is insulted or man-handled, it is not the individual but the state that is attacked. The correct course is to report through the chain of command, not to engage in a public row.”

Omoniyi Onabule, legal practitioner:

“Both men are presidential appointees. The minister should have telephoned the Chief of Naval Staff. The officer should have stepped aside once the minister’s identity and statutory power were confirmed. The clash was unnecessary and reflects poor inter-agency liaison.”

Sabastine Hon, SAN:

“No service law allows a naval rating to guard a private construction site against a minister exercising constitutional powers. If the site needed protection the civil police, not the military, should have been called. Yerima could face disciplinary action for obstructing a public officer if his orders were not in writing and were not lawful.”

Possible endings for the matter

The Chief of Naval Staff could publish the written authority, if any, under which Yerima was posted.

While the FCT Administration could cite the statutory instrument that gives the minister control of the site.

If the two documents conflict, the Attorney-General should seek an expedited opinion from the Supreme Court under section 232(1).

Conclusion

The law is not silent; it is overlapping. The minister had statutory power over land. The naval officer had a duty to obey orders. When two lawful authorities meet at the same gate, the Constitution prescribes only one peaceful referee: higher civilian authority. Until Nigeria writes clearer rules about who may post soldiers to civil sites, ministers will continue to meet force at gates, and every stand-off will end in embarrassment or litigation.