SAN Declares Naval Officer’s Obstruction of FCT Minister Wike an ‘Affront to Civil Authority’ and Breach of the Law

In a significant legal intervention that has amplified the national debate on civil-military relations, a constitutional law expert and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Professor Sebastine Hon, today, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, vehemently condemned the actions of the Naval officer who confronted the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, over a disputed land in Abuja.

Prof. Hon, reacting to the viral video of the incident, declared the officer’s conduct a “breach of the law” that cannot be justified under any lawful military order.

The SAN explained that the authority of the FCT Minister is constitutionally backed, stressing that by virtue of Sections 297(2) and 302 of the 1999 Constitution, the Minister exercises the powers of the President and Commander-in-Chief over land administration in the FCT.

“By constitutional and administrative law, therefore, Mr Wike stood in loco of the President of Nigeria on that fateful day,” Hon wrote. “Obstructing him amounts to obstructing the President’s authority. Consequently, the officer who obstructed him has breached not just the Nigerian Constitution, but also service and extant regulatory laws.”

Supreme Court Rules Against Illegal Orders

Addressing the officer’s claim of “obeying superior orders,” Prof. Hon cited binding Supreme Court rulings, including the recent decision in Onunze v. State (2023), which clearly established that a military officer’s duty of obedience does not extend to orders that are “palpably illegal or manifestly unjust.”

The law professor underscored the illegality of the officer’s duty itself, emphasizing that “no service law of the military permits a serving military officer to mount guard at the private construction site of his boss,” especially in connection with a civilian land dispute.

Prof. Hon concluded with a stern warning, stating that under Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, the officer in question could face criminal liability for civil offences, including obstructing a public officer from performing his duties, potentially leading to a court-martial. He warned that any public celebration of the officer’s action risked promoting impunity among security personnel against lawful civil authority.