0
0
The altercation between Nyesom Wike and the naval officer stationed at the residence of the former Chief of Naval Staff is more than a public spectacle. It is a sharp lesson in constitutional authority, the limits of political power, and the sacred rigidity of the military chain of command. Far too many people have attempted to justify Wike’s behaviour through emotion, ignorance, or shallow comparisons, but the Constitution remains silent and immovable: Wike was wrong. The soldier was right.
The Soldier’s Duty Is to Obey Lawful Orders — Not Ministers
The 1999 Constitution is emphatic. Section 218 places operational military command solely in the hands of the President. This command flows downward in one unbroken chain:
President → CDS → Service Chiefs → Commanders → Soldiers.
The FCT Minister has no place in this structure. A minister is a civilian administrator, not a military commander. A soldier is not bound by the command of any minister; he is bound by the orders of his superior officers. When the naval officer told Wike, “I am acting on orders,” he stood firmly within constitutional and military law.
Why the “Impregnate Your Daughter” Example Is Illogical and Irrelevant
Some people, in an attempt to defend Wike, ask ridiculous questions such as:
“If a superior asks a soldier to impregnate his daughter, will he obey?”
This is pure ignorance of military law.
Military obedience is NEVER absolute. Soldiers obey lawful orders — not criminal, immoral, or personal commands. The Armed Forces Act makes it clear:
An unlawful order must be disobeyed.
A command to commit rape, incest, murder, kidnapping, or corruption is not an order. It is a crime. No soldier is bound to obey such an abomination.
This false analogy tries to compare:
a lawful security instruction
with
a criminal, immoral act
Such a comparison collapses immediately. It is a false analogy, a strawman, and a desperate attempt to equate Wike’s emotional outburst with a soldier’s professional duty.
The naval officer was carrying out a lawful instruction to protect a secured premises. He was not asked to commit a crime. He was not asked to violate humanity or morality. He was asked to perform his duty. That is the difference.
Why Wike’s Anger and Insults Were Misplaced
Wike, driven by temperament rather than law, attempted to override the military chain of command. When the soldier stood firm on his superior’s order, Wike resorted to insult:
“You are stupid.”
This was not only an abuse of office but also a profound display of misunderstanding.
Ministers do not countermand soldiers. Ministers do not give field orders. Ministers do not unseat military protocol through anger. A sentry is not compelled to bow because a political office holder is irritated.
The Soldier’s Reaction Was the Height of Professionalism
Had the soldier obeyed Wike’s unlawful command, he would have violated:
Military discipline
Sentry protocol
Service regulations
Chain of command
He would have risked court-martial simply to satisfy a minister’s ego.
He chose professionalism over theatrics. That choice is what protects democratic order.
Wike’s Proper Recourse Was Not Verbal Combat
If Wike believed the building was illegal or the deployment improper, his lawful options were clear:
Contact the Chief of Naval Staff
Notify Defence Headquarters
Request a joint-security review
None of these options include shouting at a soldier or demanding obedience he had no authority to command.
The Foundation of Order Remains the Constitution
At the heart of this controversy is one immovable truth:
The soldier obeyed a lawful military order.
Wike issued an unlawful political instruction and boisterous display of authority.
No amount of anger, noise, or false comparisons can rewrite the Constitution or erase military doctrine.
The chain of command did not break.
Wike simply misunderstood where he stands within it.
Aare Amerijoye DOT .B
Director General
The Narrative Force.
SB E-news.
About the Author
