The Fundamental Confusion Crippling Nigerian Governance
Nigerian leaders have persistently operated under a dangerous misconception, conflating raw power with genuine authority, according to communications strategist and good governance advocate Kalu Okoronkwo. In his recent analysis published on November 19, 2025, Okoronkwo argues that this fundamental confusion lies at the heart of Nigeria's enduring governance crisis, with the recent confrontation between Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike and a young naval officer serving as a perfect illustration of this systemic problem.
Understanding the Critical Difference Between Power and Authority
Power represents the immediate ability to compel action through force or coercion, while authority constitutes a completely different form of influence built on moral legitimacy, earned trust, and public consent. Okoronkwo emphasizes that authority inspires cooperation through conviction rather than intimidation, making it the sustainable foundation for effective leadership.
The roots of Nigeria's power-authority confusion trace back to colonial administration, where the British colonial system legitimized force and suppressed indigenous structures. This established a precedent where leadership became synonymous with domination rather than service. The subsequent military regimes further entrenched this distortion, creating a governance culture where decrees replaced dialogue and power became a weapon rather than a responsibility.
Democratic Transition Fails to Break Authoritarian Habits
Despite Nigeria's return to civilian government, Okoronkwo observes that military-era reflexes have proven remarkably persistent. Many democratic leaders continue to operate with coercion-based mentalities, wielding state security, political patronage, and institutional manipulation instead of building moral legitimacy. The abuse of authority has become neither subtle nor rare in Nigerian politics but rather a recurring habit that undermines democratic institutions.
The recent Abuja confrontation provides a textbook case of this persistent confusion. Minister Wike's conduct, language, and demeanor during the incident involving a landed property belonging to a former Chief of Naval Staff demonstrated a troubling departure from civil authority. While Section 299 of the Constitution treats the FCT as a state and Section 302 empowers the President to appoint a Minister with delegated executive powers, Wike acted beyond proper bounds by personally confronting what he termed "illegal occupation."
Okoronkwo notes that while the Minister may lawfully revoke land titles through due process, it was unnecessary and improper for him to personally enforce compliance. The proper channel would have involved notifying the Inspector General of Police, since the matter constituted criminal trespass under Section 342 of the Criminal Code. Instead, Wike displayed raw power rather than legitimate civil authority.
Military Encroachment and Systemic Consequences
The incident also revealed deeper structural problems through the intervention of armed naval personnel in a purely civil matter. The Constitution strictly limits military involvement in civilian affairs, with Section 217(2)(c) permitting armed forces deployment only when called upon by the President under conditions prescribed by law. The military's primary duty remains external defense, not internal policing, making their presence at the scene unlawful without presidential authorization.
This dangerous encroachment into civilian space echoes Nigeria's authoritarian past and highlights the blurred lines between military and civil responsibilities that continue to plague the nation's governance framework.
Okoronkwo draws historical parallels to illustrate how this power-authority confusion has consistently undermined Nigerian leadership across republics. From General Sani Abacha's brutal regime marked by repression and massive looting to General Ibrahim Babangida's annulment of Nigeria's freest election in 1993, the pattern of mistaking command ability for leadership legitimacy has repeatedly sabotaged national progress.
Even under democratic rule, the problem persists as governors weaponize immunity, dissolve state assemblies, obstruct anti-graft agencies, and deploy security agencies to settle political scores. Presidents have similarly wielded "federal might" to cripple rivals, from deploying soldiers during elections to withholding funds from opposition states, as seen during President Olusegun Obasanjo's administration with Lagos state and more recently in Osun and Rivers states under the Tinubu administration.
Global Lessons and the Path Forward
The consequences of prioritizing power over authority are predictable and devastating: deepening public distrust, weakening institutions, policy failure through silent resistance, and ultimately, leadership credibility erosion. Nigeria's political system elevates leaders through party structures, godfatherism, and elite bargains rather than merit, integrity, or public trust, creating a governance environment where power becomes easy to acquire while authority remains difficult to earn.
Okoronkwo points to global examples like the Arab Spring, which toppled regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and the collapse of the Soviet Union despite its superpower status, as evidence that power without authority inevitably leads to crisis. These international parallels mirror Nigeria's own experience that obedience driven by fear cannot substitute for cooperation driven by respect.
The essential distinction remains clear: Power represents the ability to act, while authority constitutes the right to act. Power without authority becomes force without legitimacy, whereas true authority transforms power into service that protects citizens and strengthens the state.
Okoronkwo concludes that Nigeria's progress depends not on the strength or force of those who govern but on the trust they can genuinely earn. The verdict on authority in Nigeria is being delivered not in courtrooms but in the hearts of citizens who have endured decades of leaders confusing power with legitimacy. The critical lesson from both Nigerian and global history remains unambiguous: Power can secure political office, but only authority can secure the nation itself.
