November 2025
With Scholarly Perspectives, Incident Examples, and the Yerima Assassination-Attempt Allegation
The recent confrontation between FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Naval Officer Lt. A. M. Yerima over a disputed land parcel in Abuja is more than a personal clash—it is a symptom of a far deeper institutional challenge. When politicians publicly challenge uniformed officers, backed by police escorts, and military personnel respond with equal defensiveness, Nigeria is witnessing the dangerous consequences of political interference in security institutions.
Security agencies were never created to serve political egos. They are meant to uphold constitutional duty. Yet today, they are increasingly being dragged into political battles, eroding their neutrality and weakening national cohesion.
This concern is not new. Scholars, security experts, and civil society organisations have repeatedly warned that inter-agency rivalry, political manipulation, and conflicting narratives within the security sector pose severe risks to Nigeria’s stability.
Disunity in High Relief: The Yerima Assassination-Attempt Allegation
The tension took a dramatic turn when military sources alleged an assassination attempt on Lt. Yerima days after the land dispute. According to these claims, Yerima was trailed by two unmarked Hilux vans driven by men in black clothing, forcing him to evade what was described as a “coordinated attempt” on his life.
Meanwhile, the police publicly denied the entire incident, stating that no such attack occurred and that Yerima had merely encountered a routine stop-and-search patrol. The FCT Police Command said the officer was accused go tinted glasses and refuse to identify himself at checkpoint, and he reluctant, instead he called his colleagues, and insisting that claims of an assassination attempt were “false and capable of generating panic.”
These two dramatically different narratives—one from the military, the other from the police—highlight an uncomfortable truth:
Nigeria’s security institutions are no longer speaking with one voice.
Instead of presenting a unified, coordinated message, they publicly contradict each other before the nation. This is not just embarrassment—it is institutional breakdown.
Why this matters
1. Conflicting narratives weaken public trust.
Citizens lose confidence when security agencies tell opposing stories about such a serious matter.
2. It suggests political influence.
If political actors can shape or pressure the narrative on either side, the incident becomes a tool for political messaging rather than professional assessment.
3. It deepens institutional suspicion.
When the military believes the police are covering up an attack—or vice versa—trust erodes at the highest levels.
4. It encourages lower-level rivalry.
If top leadership is divided, operatives on the ground will mirror that division.
The Yerima episode has now become a symbol of disunity, reflecting broader tensions across Nigeria’s security sector.
Scholarly Perspectives: The Need for Unity and Neutrality
Prof. Eghosa Osaghae
Observes that inter-agency rivalry in Nigeria is often a direct result of political intrusion. When actors outside the security sector influence decisions, institutions lose coherence and professionalism.
Dr. Freedom Onuoha (UNN)
Finds that security effectiveness depends on inter-agency harmony. Disunity, he argues, allows criminals and insurgents to exploit gaps in coordination—often with deadly consequences.
CLEEN Foundation Reports
Warn that political manipulation of the police and military contributes to frequent clashes, poor coordination, and declining public trust in state security systems.
Dr. Jibrin Ibrahim (CDD)
Insists that security agencies must resist becoming “the coercive arm of political godfathers,” calling this trend a significant threat to democratic order.
Prof. Kemi Rotimi
Experts on police history argue that institutional rivalry is a product of weak structural safeguards against political interference, stressing that clear boundaries and independent mandates are essential.
These scholarly analyses all converge on a single point:
Nigeria’s security agencies must remain neutral, professional, and united to function effectively.
Real-World Examples of Disunity With Negative Consequences
Nigeria has repeatedly witnessed what happens when security institutions clash:
1. Adamawa Clash (2023)
Soldiers stormed a police station after a dispute at a checkpoint. An officer was killed. Analysts described it as a total collapse of discipline.
2. Benue Joint Checkpoint Shootout
Police and soldiers exchanged gunfire in Gwer West LGA—leaving civilians terrified and exposing deep distrust.
3. Zamfara Joint Camp Confrontation
A senior military officer allegedly assaulted a police inspector during a counter-banditry operation—reflecting deteriorating inter-service respect.
4. Abuja IMN (Shiite) Clashes
Confusion between military and police involvement weakened operational clarity during the Shiite protests.
5. Shiroro Ambush (2022)
Poor coordination contributed to the loss of 34 soldiers and 8 policemen in a bandit ambush.
These examples demonstrate that disunity is not just administrative—it is deadly
Why Neutrality Is the Foundation of Institutional Strength
Security experts universally agree that an apolitical security structure is the strongest defence against insecurity.
Neutrality builds legitimacy.
A security agency seen as partisan loses moral authority.
Unity enhances operational efficiency.
Joint operations depend on trust and coordinated command.
Discipline thrives when politics stays out.
Politicised commands lead to insubordination and internal fragmentation.
Public trust grows when agencies act professionally, not politically.
The Yerima narrative conflict, therefore, is not a minor disagreement.
It is a warning sign that political influence has begun to disrupt the security chain of command.
A Way Forward: What Must Be Done
1. Establish Joint Inter-Agency Communication Protocols
Security agencies must issue unified public statements on sensitive issues.
2. Create a Standing Inter-Service Conflict Resolution Board
To resolve misunderstandings before they escalate.
3. Enforce strict neutrality training
Officers must be equipped to resist political manipulation.
4. Sanction political actors who interfere with security agencies
No democracy functions when politicians command security institutions like personal guards.
5. Improve welfare and career stability
Underpaid officers are more vulnerable to political influence.
Conclusion: The Cost of Disunity Is Too High
The Wike–Yerima episode, followed by conflicting accounts of an assassination attempt, has exposed what scholars have warned for years: Nigeria’s security institutions are vulnerable to political manipulation and internal division.
If the police and military cannot trust each other, Nigeria cannot be secure.
If political figures continue to exploit inter-agency weaknesses, the nation will pay the price.
And if security institutions do not reclaim their unity and neutrality, they risk losing the honour, respect, and authority that hold the Nigerian state together.
Nigeria needs united security institutions—free from political control, grounded in professionalism, and committed to one constitutional duty: protecting the people.
Tags
Opinion