MINISTER WIKE, THE UNIFORM, AND THE THIN LINE BETWEEN CIVIL POWER AND MILITARY DIGNITY
By Jerry Adesewo
When a uniformed officer salutes, he does so not to a man, but to the authority of the Nigerian state. That salute—silent, disciplined, and precise—represents centuries of tradition, loyalty, and sacrifice. It is this quiet but sacred symbolism that was jolted on November 11, 2025, when the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Barrister Nyesom Wike, was seen in a heated public altercation with a military officer in uniform.
READ ALSO: Buratai Calls for Immediate Action Over Wike’s Confrontation with Military Officer
The incident, though fleeting, has ignited a national debate—one that sits at the very heart of Nigeria’s civil-military relationship. For a country with a complex history of coups, military rule, and democratic rebirth, the delicate balance between civilian authority and military dignity has always been more than just protocol—it is an essential pillar of our national stability.
The flashpoint
Eyewitness accounts suggest that the minister publicly berated a uniformed officer during an inspection exercise within the FCT. While details of the exchange remain sketchy, what stood out for many Nigerians was not the argument itself, but the image it presented: a civilian political leader, finger raised, voice elevated, verbally assaulting an officer who stood stiffly at attention, visibly restrained by the discipline that his uniform demanded of him.
That image has since become a metaphor for a deeper conversation. How should civilian leaders exercise authority over the military? Where does assertive leadership end and humiliation begin? And most importantly, what does such public conduct mean for the morale and professionalism of those in uniform?
The reactions
Among those who have reacted most strongly is former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai (rtd). In a statement that has circulated widely, Buratai called the minister’s action “a clear threat to national security and institutional integrity.” His words were measured but firm, reflecting the sentiment of many within and outside the barracks: that the uniform is not just clothing, but a symbol of sovereignty that must never be disrespected.
“When an officer stands in uniform, he represents not himself but the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and the collective will of our people,” he said. “To insult that uniform is to insult the nation itself.”
The retired general, who once led the Nigerian Army during one of its most challenging counterinsurgency phases, cautioned that allowing such acts to go unchecked could embolden others to disregard the military’s command structure and weaken the nation’s security framework.
“This is not political theatre,” Buratai warned. “It is a reckless endangerment of national order and an affront to the federal government’s authority.”
Security analysts are in agreement. Brigadier General Dele Tajudeen Olabode (rtd), a respected civil-military relations expert, described the incident as “a dangerous misstep that sends the wrong signal to the ranks in the Armed Forces of Nigeria.” According to him,
“The military is trained to be subordinated to civilian authority, but that obedience and selfless service are anchored on mutual respect. One critical core value in the military is the ‘Respect for Others,’ where the significance of reciprocity of respect is held in very high esteem in the course of our engagements with the civil populace.
“However, when a soldier feels his dignity is publicly stripped away, it doesn’t just affect him as a person, but it reverberates across the entire command structure of the Armed Forces of Nigeria as an entity.
He concluded with the Albert Einstein quote that goes thus, ‘The world will not be destroyed by those who do evils but by those who watch them without doing anything, when he said emohatically that, “The attitudinal disposition of the Minister and his utterances must be condemned in clear terms in order to forestall a repeat of such ugly situations in the future.”
The bigger picture
Nigeria’s democracy rests on a delicate equilibrium. On one hand, the Constitution places the Armed Forces under civilian control—a safeguard against the authoritarianism of the past. On the other, the Armed Forces are sworn to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation, sometimes at unimaginable personal cost.
In that delicate dance, both sides have roles defined not only by law but by decorum. Civilian leaders are expected to exercise authority with restraint and respect; the military, in turn, is expected to obey without question but within constitutional bounds. When either side forgets this balance, friction becomes inevitable.
Historically, Nigeria has seen this friction escalate into dangerous territory. From the political tensions of the 1960s that culminated in coups, to the uneasy transitions of the 1990s, every major disruption of Nigeria’s democracy has had its roots in the breakdown of trust between civil and military institutions. It is precisely to avoid such scenarios that modern democracies enforce strict codes of mutual respect between elected officials and security personnel.
Why this moment matters
Observers say the latest incident, if left unaddressed, could have broader implications. Public humiliation of uniformed officers erodes the morale of the force, and in a country still grappling with insecurity—from insurgency in the North-East to banditry and separatist tensions—it is the last thing Nigeria needs.
Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. If a minister can berate a soldier today, what stops a local chairman or commissioner from doing the same tomorrow? What message does that send to the young men and women in training who are told that service to the nation is honourable?
“The military thrives on respect, hierarchy, and discipline,” notes Prince Anayochukwu Onukhagha, the Director of Administration, Klub98 Initiatives and a keen observer and analyst of national events, “When a civilian leader undermines that in public, even unintentionally, it shakes the confidence of those who must execute orders under difficult conditions.”
Beyond apology—towards reform
While some have called for a public apology from the FCT Minister, others believe the issue is larger than any single individual. It exposes a broader gap in understanding between Nigeria’s political class and the military establishment. The military’s subordination to civilian rule must not translate into disrespect, and political authority must never be exercised as personal power.
Experts suggest that this is the moment for government to reemphasize the ethics of civil-military interaction, both within the armed forces and among public officials. Respectful coordination, not confrontation, is the hallmark of a mature democracy.
The Presidency, as the apex of both civilian and military command, has a unique opportunity to reaffirm that balance. Clear guidance and education on the boundaries of interaction could go a long way in preventing future occurrences.
A matter of national psychology
At its core, this issue is not just about Wike or the officer involved—it is about Nigeria’s collective understanding of power and respect. The military, for all its faults, remains one of the few institutions that command national trust. The civilian arm of government, for all its legitimacy, must guard that trust jealously.
As one analyst put it, “You don’t build a nation by embarrassing the very people who protect it.”
If the image of that uniformed officer standing still under the weight of political anger teaches us anything, it is that discipline must never be mistaken for weakness—and authority must never be confused with arrogance.
For Nigeria to remain secure, the relationship between the barracks and the political office must be one of mutual honour. Anything less, and we risk undoing the fragile peace that holds our democracy together.