The recent confrontation in Abuja between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and a Nigerian military officer at a duty post has ignited a basic and elementary constitutional question, who commands the Armed Forces of Nigeria, how are the powers delegated, and to whom does a soldier answer under Nigerian law?
The answer is unambiguous. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the command and operational use of the Armed Forces in the President as Commander-in-Chief. That authority is exercised strictly through the lawful military chain of command and may be delegated only to a member of the Armed Forces, and not to any civilian minister.
The Armed Forces Act operationalizes this structure by placing day-to-day command in the Chief of Defence Staff and the Service Chiefs, from whom orders flow to theatre/formation commanders, unit commanders, and then to troops in the field. A soldier on post takes instructions only from his superior officers, to whom he is directly answerable, and from no one else.
By contrast, a minister’s authority is purely executive and administrative. Sections 147–148 of the Constitution empower the President to assign “any business of the Government” to ministers; and for the FCT specifically, section 302 allows the President to appoint an FCT Minister “who shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be delegated to him by the President.” That delegation concerns civil administration, not military command, which the Constitution separately and specifically ring-fences under section 218.
It is therefore pertinent to submit that while the Minister of the FCT has the authority to represent the President within the FCT, such powers are limited to civilian administration and are not the same as exercising control over a member of the Armed Forces.
It follows that no minister can lawfully countermand a soldier’s orders, question an operational posting, or issue binding instructions to an officer on a duty beat. A soldier’s duty post is where his commanders assign him, and his accountability runs within that chain of command.
While the Minister of FCT has authority over all the lands under the FCT and has powers to dictate the use in line with the Law. When a he meets obstruction from a Military command the proper options available to him is to escalate the matter through the established security architecture and the relevant commanders, or engage with the President at most to address such issues, not to confront the officer at post. Such behavior is reckless, primitive and an abuse of office.
The criminal law protects officers on lawful duty from interference. The Constitution’s Fifth Schedule classifies all members of the Armed Forces as public officers. In the southern states of Nigeria(Criminal Code regime), section 197 criminalises obstructing or resisting a public officer in the discharge of duty. Within the FCT (Penal Code regime), provisions such as sections 148–149 (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of lawful functions) and section 153 (threat of injury to a public servant) are against by conduct that seeks to browbeat officers at their posts. These are enforceable norms that safeguard the integrity of public duties.
There is no special shield for ministers who cross the line. A minister has no Constitutional immunity, as such is limited under section 308 to the President, Vice-President, Governors, and Deputy Governors. A minister who intimidates or obstructs an officer on duty should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted like any other citizen.
In sum, the law draws a bright line, while the ministers run civilian administration, the President only, through the military chain of command, controls the troops. A ‘soldier’ at his post answers to his commanders, not to politicians, and the criminal law forbids attempts to insult, intimidate, or countermand him while he discharges his duty.
The Wike episode should be addressed decisively by the government for one singular reason. Some Nigerians in political offices have cultivated the habit of assuming they are all-powerful and often disregard the limits of their authority. Tolerating such conduct risks more serious confrontations in the future from politicians.
Pelumi Olajengbesi is a Legal Practitioner and Senior Partner at Law Corridor.
