Have Northern Reactions, Global Online Mockery, and President Tinubu’s Silence Combined to Make Wike a “High-Value” Target — Requiring Protective Measures?-By Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi

The Unanimous Institutional Verdict: A Wound That Will Not Heal

The confrontation between Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Ezenwo Wike and Naval Lieutenant A. M. Yerima has exploded into a national psychological and institutional crisis. What began as a heated exchange over land has now triggered an emotional, cultural, and security reaction unlike anything Nigeria has witnessed in recent political memory. Lt. Yerima’s composure, discipline, and refusal to escalate the confrontation stood in stark contrast to the Minister’s visible agitation, and the public humiliation of the young officer immediately drew condemnation from all corners of Nigeria’s military and security establishment.

Former Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant General Tukur Yusuf Buratai (retd.) and former Chief of Defence Staff General Lucky Eluonye Onyenuchea Irabor (retd.) publicly declared that Wike’s conduct constituted a reckless affront to the dignity of the uniform and a direct challenge to the chain of command. They warned that such behavior—left unaddressed—risks dragging Nigeria toward a “jungle” state where institutional order collapses and personal impulse overrides protocol.

Those concerns were amplified by the current Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, who expressed deep unease about the public humiliation of a serving naval officer and the dangerous precedent it sets across the Armed Forces. His intervention made it clear that the alarm was not limited to retired officers or veterans; it was active and present at the very top of Nigeria’s defence command structure. The message from the CDS was straightforward: undermining the dignity of a uniformed officer undermines the stability of the entire system.

This united front was followed by statements from the Minister of Defence, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar, and the Minister of State for Defence, Bello Muhammad Matawalle, who revealed that Wike disregarded advice from the Service Chiefs to allow the matter to be handled quietly and internally. By pushing ahead with a confrontational approach, the Minister bypassed the very institutional mechanisms designed to prevent exactly this type of escalation.

Even the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, responded with swift disciplinary action on the policing side of the incident, signaling that the security community was unwilling to overlook breaches of protocol or disrespect toward uniformed personnel. His swift administrative response reinforced the message that institutions were unified in their disapproval.

Wike’s refusal to issue a public apology or even acknowledge a momentary lapse in judgment—despite this sweeping, cross-regional, cross-institutional outcry—moved the situation beyond political controversy and into a zone of profound personal, psychological, and symbolic exposure. At the very moment when a simple apology would have calmed tempers, protected national cohesion, and reaffirmed his respect for the military, Wike chose open defiance. Instead of taking the political off-ramp presented to him, he questioned the motives of those criticizing him, reinforcing the impression that he considers himself untouchable. This single miscalculation deepened the injury within the military and shifted the narrative from the confrontation itself to the broader question of whether the Minister respects Nigeria’s security institutions at all.

The Psychological Error: How the Press Failed the Nation — and Helped Wike Damage Himself

Wike’s press briefing should have been the moment he repaired the emotional damage of the confrontation. Instead, it became the moment he deepened it. But he did not do this alone. The press — the so-called watchdog of democracy — stood before him like spectators, not journalists. They entered that room when the nation was demanding clarity, accountability, and genuine contrition. Yet they asked no hard questions. They probed no inconsistencies. They avoided the very topics the country was waiting to hear addressed.

In truth, the press behaved as if it were grateful merely to be present, not responsible for guarding the country’s democratic boundaries. That failure was not neutral — it was harmful. A press corps that refuses to challenge power effectively gives it license. By their silence, they indirectly validated Wike’s posture. By their timidity, they indirectly increased his symbolic exposure. And by not forcing him into a moment of reflection or restraint, they helped escalate a national controversy into a psychological crisis.

It is one thing when a politician misreads the national mood. It is far worse when the press misreads its own obligations. At a moment when the nation needed serious journalism, Nigeria got soft chairs, soft voices, and softer questions. The media’s passivity left Wike free to harden his stance — to double down, to deflect blame, and to rewrite the narrative on his own terms. Instead of reducing tension, the press allowed him to widen the emotional gap between himself and the institutions that felt insulted.

Wike made matters even worse by attacking those who criticized him and using the briefing to strike at sections of mainstream media. Rather than showing humility, he displayed hostility. Rather than clarifying his actions, he questioned the motives of those calling for accountability. This behavior did not strengthen his position — it weakened it. It painted him as a Minister who sees himself under siege, when the wiser posture would have been reconciliation and restraint.

In political psychology, attacking critics during a crisis does not project confidence — it telegraphs emotional instability. And striking at the press, even a complicit one, only amplifies the perception that the leader has lost touch with the public mood. In Wike’s case, the combination of a passive press and an aggressive response created the worst possible outcome: a national moment that demanded humility instead produced bravado, defensiveness, and unnecessary political escalation.

What could have been a moment of healing became a moment of self-inflicted damage — aided, enabled, and amplified by a media space that failed its basic duty

Tinubu’s Silence and the Transfer of Risk

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s prolonged silence formed the most consequential layer of symbolic escalation. In civil–military crises, the first 48 hours are critical for restoring equilibrium. The President’s refusal to intervene within that window was widely interpreted as tacit approval of Wike’s conduct. Whether accurate or not, public perception quickly adopted this narrative.

Across Northern political and security circles, the President’s silence was interpreted as evidence that Tinubu is shielding Wike. This perception matters because the uniform carries deep emotional, cultural, and regional significance in the North. To many observers, the idea that the Commander-in-Chief appears to protect a minister who publicly confronted a military officer intensifies feelings of regional disrespect. This interpretation—while not necessarily grounded in fact—transforms Wike’s political exposure into regional symbolic exposure.

Compounding this was the broader media silence. Without firm presidential intervention and without media interrogation, Nigeria entered an emotional vacuum where public resentment grew freely. In political psychology, when the highest office in the land and the nation’s primary watchdog institutions fail to set boundaries or clarify moral expectations, public anger transfers entirely onto the figure at the center of the confrontation. Thus, Wike became not just a political actor but a fully visible, emotionally unshielded symbol onto which national frustration could be projected.

At this stage, even if President Tinubu or his media team were to speak, attempt clarification, or issue a conciliatory statement, the psychological damage has already taken root. The silence came at the most sensitive moment—when institutions, the public, and regional power blocs were forming their emotional judgments. Once a narrative of executive protection, regional disrespect, and institutional disregard takes hold, late communication cannot erase it; it can only be interpreted as damage control. In political psychology, timing is everything, and the window for meaningful presidential intervention closed the moment the nation concluded that the Commander-in-Chief had chosen loyalty over institutional balance. Whatever is said now will arrive after the emotional imprint has hardened.

The Chilling Translation: From Cartoon to Cultural Weapon

The next stage of the crisis unfolded online. Social media quickly filled with caricatures and edited images depicting Nyesom Wike being beaten, hit, thrown down, dragged, humiliated, or mocked. These depictions are fictional. They are symbolic. Yet they are profoundly meaningful. In the psychology of symbolic violence, repeated humorous portrayals of a public figure undergoing humiliation represent a form of dehumanization. They strip the individual of dignity in the public imagination. They normalize emotional detachment. They weaken the moral boundary that typically protects leaders from becoming targets of collective disdain. The ease with which these images spread suggests that the public had entered a psychological space where the Minister was no longer seen primarily as a human figure or a national leader, but as a character—a digital object for ridicule.

Symbolic violence does not predict physical harm, but it reveals emotional conditions that make a leader more vulnerable to hostility. Wike’s refusal to apologize, combined with the silence of the President, allowed these depictions to shape public consciousness. As a result, he became a figure representing perceived arrogance, institutional disrespect, and executive impunity. This transformation elevates symbolic exposure, not physical threat, but symbolic exposure is itself a form of political danger.

In political psychology, symbolic violence does not cause physical harm, but it prepares the emotional ground for it. When a public figure is repeatedly portrayed as beaten, thrown down, or humiliated in online caricatures, it shifts the collective subconscious. The public begins to view the figure as someone whose suffering is imaginable, discussable, and even acceptable. This psychological shift does not mean physical harm will occur, but it lowers the emotional barriers that ordinarily prevent people from entertaining such ideas. In this way, symbolic violence becomes an indirect psychological route through which frustration, resentment, and anger can migrate from the digital space into the real-world imagination. The danger is not the cartoons themselves, but the emotional permission they create.

The Unprotected Symbol: When a Leader Becomes the Lightning Rod

The cumulative effect of institutional rebuke, presidential silence, media restraint, and online dehumanization has converted Nyesom Wike into an emotionally charged symbol in national discourse. He is now seen not merely as a minister, but as a lightning rod for multiple tensions: civil-military distrust, regional sensitivities, and frustration with political impunity.

In such moments, the psychological burden shifts from the office to the individual. When a public figure becomes the vessel for public resentment, their symbolic exposure increases dramatically. They become the focal point of unresolved emotional energy. This is not a prediction of harm, but a recognition of political psychology: symbolic vulnerability is a form of risk that must be managed with care, wisdom, and humility.

A Direct Message to Nyesom Wike: What You Must Now Do to Protect Yourself

Nyesom Wike, this is the moment to understand that you cannot move through Abuja the way you used to. The emotional atmosphere around you has shifted, and the responsible thing now is to adjust your habits, routines, and protective posture accordingly. This is not fear-mongering; it is psychological reality. When regional sentiment hardens, when online mockery multiplies, and when institutional resentment deepens, you must begin to watch your back in a disciplined, intelligent, and proactive way.

Wike, you must immediately reduce predictability in your daily movements. Do not run the same routes, do not keep the same times, and do not appear in the same patterns for the next several weeks. Predictability creates exposure. Randomizing your schedule protects you. Your security team should already be mapping alternative routes, alternative entry points, and alternative departure times. If they are not, they are failing you.

You must also reinforce your protection with a private layer — professionals whose loyalty is strictly to the assignment, who are not emotionally entangled in this controversy, and who are trained to identify subtle behavioral cues in crowds and convoys. This is not a sign of distrust in state security; it is a recognition that morale in certain institutions has been shaken by this episode. You need an additional team whose judgment is unaffected, whose alertness is undiluted, and whose focus is absolute.

Wike, you must adopt a softer public posture and avoid any new confrontations, verbal clashes, or combative rhetoric. At this moment, every word you say is being filtered through a national emotional lens. Speak less. Move quietly. Let your behavior signal humility and restraint. Even small symbolic gestures — affirming the dignity of the uniform, acknowledging hurt sentiments, showing respect — will help to lower the temperature around you.

And finally, you must avoid giving the public any opportunity to misinterpret your tone, body language, or statements. Every camera angle, every phrase, every movement now carries weight. This is not the time for political bravado. It is the time for psychological intelligence, emotional discipline, and strategic caution.

Wike, the message is simple: you must watch your back — not out of fear, but out of wisdom. Political storms are not survived by ego; they are survived by awareness, humility, and calculated steps. Take these measures now, and you protect not only your position, but yourself.

Conclusion: A Nation at the Edge — and Why Wike Must Step Back While Navy Lieutenant Yerima Must Step Forward

The Wike–Yerima confrontation has done more than ignite public outrage; it has exposed the fragility of Nigeria’s emotional and institutional stability. It revealed how quickly a single incident can morph into a national psychological crisis, how silence from the Presidency can harden regional perceptions, and how a passive press can inadvertently amplify tension instead of calming it. It also revealed, with painful clarity, the difference between political temperament and professional discipline.

In that moment of national embarrassment, it was Navy Lieutenant A. M. Yerima — not the powerful minister — who demonstrated leadership. His composure, restraint, and refusal to react under provocation embodied values Nigeria desperately needs: discipline, dignity, and emotional intelligence. He upheld the honor of the uniform at a time when political actors eroded it.

That is why the uncomfortable truth must now be faced: Nyesom Wike needs to step back. Not forever, not as an act of defeat, but as an act of responsibility — to himself and to the nation. The emotional atmosphere around him is too charged. The symbolic pressure is too heavy. The narratives forming around his actions are too deeply rooted for him to continue at full speed without risking further institutional damage. Stepping back is not weakness; it is psychological wisdom. It is a necessary pause that creates space for cooling, reflection, and national recalibration.

Meanwhile, Navy Lieutenant Yerima deserves formal acknowledgment, not as a political gesture, but as a recognition of exemplary conduct under pressure. In fact, his restraint in the face of public provocation merits instant commendation — even a double promotion. Not as compensation for humiliation, but as a clear message that professionalism still matters in Nigeria, and that those who uphold institutional dignity should be elevated, not forgotten.

Nigeria is at a crossroads. It can choose emotional escalation, fueled by regional interpretations, online mockery, media timidity, and presidential silence — or it can choose institutional maturity. That maturity requires honest actions: the Presidency must speak; the media must recover courage; the security establishment must affirm dignity; and Wike must acknowledge the moment by stepping aside briefly for the sake of national stability.

If Nigeria is to prevent this crisis from metastasizing, it must let the heat subside.

And the clearest path forward is now unmistakable:

Wike must step back — and Navy Lieutenant A. M. Yerima must step forward.

About the Author

Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist and educator with expertise in forensic, legal, clinical, cross-cultural psychology, public ethical policy, police, and prison science.

A native of Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, and son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force, he has dedicated his professional life to bridging psychology with justice, education, and governance. In 2011, he played a pioneering role in introducing advanced forensic psychology to Nigeria through the National Universities Commission and Nasarawa State University, where he served as Associate Professor of Psychology.

He currently serves as contributing faculty in the Doctorate in Clinical and School Psychology at Nova Southeastern University; teaches across the Doctorate Clinical Psychology, BS Psychology, and BS Tempo Criminal Justice programs at Walden University; and lectures virtually in Management and Leadership Studies at Weldios University and ISCOM University. He is also the President and Chief Psychologist at the Oshodi Foundation, Center for Psychological and Forensic Services, United States.

Prof. Oshodi is a Black Republican in the United States but aligns with no political party in Nigeria—his allegiance is to justice alone. On the matters he writes about, he speaks for no one and represents no side; his voice is guided solely by the pursuit of justice, good governance, democracy, and Africa’s advancement. He is the founder of Psychoafricalysis (Psychoafricalytic Psychology)—a culturally rooted framework that integrates African sociocultural realities, historical awareness, and future-oriented identity. A prolific thinker and writer, he has produced more than 500 articles, several books, and numerous peer-reviewed works on Africentric psychology, higher education reform, forensic and correctional psychology, African democracy, and decolonized models of therapy.