A Nigerian legal expert has stepped forward to defend the naval officer who recently confronted Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike, providing constitutional backing for the military man's actions during their widely-publicized face-off.
Constitutional Defense for Military Actions
Barrister Stella Justice has countered critics questioning Lieutenant Ahmad Yerima's presence at the disputed property site where he prevented Minister Wike from accessing the building. The lawyer pointed to specific legal provisions that justify the naval officer's involvement in what many considered a civil matter.
According to Barrister Justice, Section 217(2) of the 1999 Constitution and relevant sections of the Armed Forces Act provide legal grounds for military personnel to intervene in civil situations under specific circumstances. This legal interpretation challenges the widespread assumption that the naval officer overstepped his boundaries by engaging with the FCT Minister.
The Real Question Everyone Should Ask
In a detailed Facebook post that has gained significant attention, the legal professional shifted the focus from whether the naval officer should have been involved to whether the order he received was legitimate. The barrister emphasized that military personnel operate under a different legal framework than civilians.
"A soldier cannot on his own jump into civil issues," Barrister Justice stated in her social media analysis. "But a soldier can act in a civil matter if there is a lawful directive from the proper authority."
The lawyer highlighted that Lieutenant Yerima explicitly stated he was acting under orders to prevent Minister Wike from accessing the building. If this command originated from the appropriate military chain and was lawful, the naval officer was simply fulfilling his constitutional and statutory duty to obey commands.
Public Reaction to Legal Analysis
The barrister's interpretation has sparked diverse reactions across social media platforms. Many Nigerians have expressed support for this legal perspective, while others question its practical implications.
Solomon Dogara Akut commented: "Under Section 217(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 7 & 8 of the Armed Forces Act, only the President as Commander in Chief has command authority over the Armed Forces. Ministers, including Defence, have administrative oversight, not operational control. The officer AM Yarima did a well done job."
Another social media user, Patrick Agbo, supported the military perspective: "A soldier is only answerable to his superiors, that's military law, not civil law. In the military, an order is an order, you can't disobey it. That order is what keeps the military going and progressive. Military no be Ministry."
However, not all legal professionals share this viewpoint. Barrister Firsts Baba Isa has publicly criticized the trending naval officer, arguing that Yerima should not be celebrated as a hero despite widespread public support for his conduct during the confrontation.
The ongoing debate highlights the complex intersection between military protocol, constitutional law, and civilian authority in Nigeria's governance structure. As discussions continue, the incident raises important questions about the boundaries of military involvement in civil matters and the interpretation of Nigeria's legal frameworks.
