|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Full Text
The Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), under the leadership of Nyesom Wike, the FCT minister, has carried out demolition of illegal house structures and land recovery efforts, aimed at addressing illegal land allocations and unapproved structures across Abuja.
Against this backdrop, the social media space became frenzied on Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2025, when several video clips of Wike involved in an altercation with a naval officer swept the internet.
The heated exchange took place in the Gaduwa District area of the FCT over a piece of land owned by a former Chief of Naval Staff, Awwal Gambo.
During the site inspection, the minister confronted the naval personnel present, Ahmed Yerima, and accused him of impunity for failing to provide the necessary documents for the property.
Matters soon worsened when the naval personnel maintained that they were not there to intimidate anybody from the FCTA, but were simply following orders.
The senior army officer further claimed that the land belonged to a superior, prompting a heated exchange.
This incident has reignited a long-standing question on whether the Nigerian military has any legal right to interfere in civilian settings.
Instances of where the military interfered can also be found here and here
In line with DUBAWA’s Media and Information Literacy (MIL) role, this explainer seeks to clarify the legal boundaries of military involvement in civilian matters and help citizens understand what the law permits and prohibits.
What’s the legal position?
The Nigerian Constitution (1999) explicitly defines the role of the military under Section 217 (2).
It states, among other things, that the military shall be charged with the defence of the nation against external aggression, maintaining its territorial integrity, and securing its borders from violation by any means.
By virtue of the provision, the military’s primary mandate is national defence and not civil administration.
Meanwhile, it is noteworthy to add that the armed forces may be deployed for “such other functions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”
This stipulation opens the door for limited domestic deployment, but only when backed by high-level approval, especially from the president or any authority to which such power is delegated.
When can the military operate in civilian settings?
Under Nigerian law, there are only a few legitimate circumstances where the military may be involved in civilian affairs:
The Armed Forces Act (Cap A20, LFN 2004) allows the president to authorise military deployment in aid of civil authorities, such as the police, in situations of serious breakdown of law and order. This is often invoked during large-scale riots or communal conflicts, terrorism and insurgency operations and nationwide crises where the police are overwhelmed.
Examples of this include Operation Python Dance, Operation Crocodile Smile, and Operation Safe Haven, all of which involved the army supporting the police to restore order in the country in the past.
Additionally, the Nigerian military can assist in humanitarian operations, such as flood relief, search and rescue missions, or national emergencies like the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown, which was part of national service.
The military may also be deployed in exceptional cases to protect assets of national importance, such as oil pipelines, airports, or borders, where sabotage or insecurity poses a national threat.
What experts say
DUBAWA spoke with Francis Ochie, a legal expert and adviser at Veritas University, who explained the legal conditions for deploying the military in civilian areas.
Francis stated that the president of the country has the absolute authority to mobilise the armed forces because he has the legal backing of the constitution.
“Under the Nigerian military system, the president has the authority to deploy the armed forces, deriving this power from the 1999 Constitution,” Francis said.
“The Armed Forces Act, Section 218, also provides the legal framework for such operations,” He further emphasised.
Francis said that military deployment in civilian contexts is limited and regulated.
“The operational use of the armed forces for suppressing insurrection or acting in aid of civil authorities is exercised only when called upon by the President, and it is subject to acts of the National Assembly. Deployments cannot be arbitrary; there are checks and balances.”
He added that governors can request military support through the Inspector-General of Police in exceptional cases, such as terrorism, riots, or insurgency. However, the president must approve.
Additionally, Section 218(4) of the Constitution requires Senate approval if a deployment exceeds one month, ensuring legislative oversight.
Francis also explained that the military has no legal standing to intervene in civil matters such as land disputes or the enforcement of government demolitions.
Civil authorities under the civilian government handle these issues: courts resolve land disputes, and the police are responsible for enforcing court judgments or demolition orders.
The military’s role is limited to aiding civil authorities only when situations escalate beyond the control of the police.
He cited the 2005 case involving former president Muhammadu Buhari and former president Olusegun Obasanjo, in which the court declared that the participation of the armed forces in an election violated the principles governing the military.
In essence, the military is not the primary enforcer and plays no role in ordinary civil matters.
DUBAWA also spoke with Yusuf Salawu, a lawyer at Tayo Laleye & Co., about the legality of military intervention in civil matters, such as land disputes or the enforcement of government demolitions.
Yusuf explained that while the military can, in certain instances, act in aid of civil authorities, such as the police, to restore or maintain order, or protect specific assets, including military property. However, he noted there are strict legal limits to such actions.
Speaking about the recent incident involving the FCT minister, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently affirmed these limits. Rulings such as Onunze v. State (2023) and Nigeria Air Force v. James (2002) establish that military personnel are not obliged to obey orders that are manifestly illegal or unjust, such as guarding private land or obstructing a lawful government official.
“Officers enforcing such illegal commands are personally liable under both civil and military law in Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and may face court-martial for offences like obstructing a public officer,” He explained.
Yusuf also added that, in this particular case, the minister was not entirely correct, as his intended action lacked legal backing, given there was no court order to substantiate it.
Conclusion
In summary, the Nigerian military lacks legal authority to intervene in ordinary civil matters, such as land disputes or demolitions.
Its involvement is strictly limited to situations authorised by the president and supported by law, ensuring that civil institutions remain the primary enforcers.
