There are moments in the life of a nation when a statement is no longer just a statement—it becomes a signal. A signal of intent. A signal of intolerance. A signal of how far power believes it can go unchecked!
The recent outburst attributed to Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria, in response to journalist Seun Okinbaloye, (which he has not and cannot deny),— that “if he had a gun, he would have shot him”—is not merely a moment of anger. It is a dangerous expression that transcends domestic politics and enters the domain of global democratic concern!
In any functioning democracy, words spoken by those in power carry weight beyond rhetorics. They shape the boundaries of acceptable conduct, especially among loyalists who often interprete such utterances not as hyperbole, but as coded permission!
This is where the matter ceases to be local!
When Power Normalizes Violence
History teaches us that democratic erosion rarely begins with tanks on the streets. It begins with the normalization of violent language by those entrusted with public authority. When a senior government official casually invokes lethal violence against a journalist, it sends three troubling messages:
To the media: You are not safe!
To supporters: Aggression is permissible in defense of power!
To the world: This democracy may be slipping into intolerance!
The comparison by critics of the current administration to the era of Sani Abacha is not incidental. It is rooted in the fear that democratic structures are being weakened not by formal decrees, but by informal signals—signals that excuse (allow) or even celebrate intimidation!
The Global Stakes of Local Recklessness
Nigeria is not just any country. As Africa’s most populous nation and one of its most influential democracies, its political culture has ripple effects across the continent and beyond. What is tolerated in Abuja today can be replicated in other capitals tomorrow!
This is why the silence—or perceived silence—of Bola Ahmed Tinubu on such a matter becomes internationally significant! Leadership is not only tested in policy decisions but in the willingness to draw clear moral lines!
If a minister can publicly fantasize about shooting a journalist without immediate and decisive rebuke, what prevents a local political actor, emboldened by such rhetoric, from acting it out?
The world has seen this pattern before—in countries where journalists became targets, dissenters became enemies, and governance gradually morphed into coercion!
From National Embarrassment to International Liability
The danger here is not hypothetical. It is reputational, institutional, and potentially kinetic!
Reputationally, Nigeria risks being seen as a state where democratic norms are performative rather than practiced.
Institutionally, it weakens public trust in governance and the rule of law.
Operationally, it creates conditions where political violence can be rationalized.
In an era where global governance is increasingly interconnected, such developments attract scrutiny from international bodies, human rights organizations, and foreign partners. Investors, diplomats, and multilateral institutions pay attention not just to economic indicators, but to the tone and texture of political leadership.
The Responsibility to Intervene—Globally and Locally
It may be argued that this is an internal matter—one to be handled within Nigeria’s sovereign framework. But sovereignty does not grant immunity from global concern, especially when democratic norms and human rights are implicated.
The international community has both a moral and strategic interest in ensuring that influential democracies do not regress into environments where violence—verbal or physical—is normalized in political discourse.
However, the primary responsibility still lies within Nigeria.
President Tinubu must recognize that silence in moments like this is not neutrality—it is interpreted as tolerance. A firm, unequivocal stance against such rhetorics would not only restore confidence but also reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to democratic principles!
A Line Must Be Drawn
This is not about partisan politics. It is about the integrity of democratic culture.
If leaders are allowed to speak recklessly without consequences, institutions will gradually lose their authority. And when institutions fail, individuals take matters into their own hands!
That is how democracies decay—not overnight, but through a series of tolerated excesses.
*Conclusion: A Warning, Not a Wish*
Wishes are made when reality is not in agreement with desires.
Warning is what it should be when all things are ready!
The rate of proliferation of arms in Nigeria is alarming. According to the former Chief of Defence Staff, and presently, the Minister for Defence, Gen Christopher Musa, Nigeria harbours 40% of the over 500 million illegal small arms and light weapons circulating in West Africa!
This proliferation is driven by factors such as:
– *Porous borders*: Weak border controls and enables smuggling of arms into the country.
– *Insurgency and organized crimes*: Groups like *Boko Haram* and *Bandits* exploit these weapons for violence.
– *Poverty and unemployment*: Economic hardship fuels demand for arms among vulnerable populations!
– *Corruption*: Allegations of officials abetting arms smuggling persist!
In a nation thus challenged, the consequences of recklessness of speech are severe, it could trigger:
– *Violence and insecurity*: SALW proliferation fuels conflicts, armed robberies, and kidnappings.
– *Human rights abuses*: Extra-judicial killings, gender-based violence, and displacements occur.
– *Economic disruption*: Attacks on infrastructure and businesses hinder development.
Estimates suggest 1-3 million SALW are in circulation in Nigeria, with significant impacts on national security and stability.
That is the society, Wike spoke to.
“May Wike never have his way” it is more than a personal sentiment—it is a civic warning!
A warning that Nigeria must not descend into a space where power is expressed through intimidation.
A warning that words, when left unchecked, can become actions.
A warning that the world is watching—not out of intrusion, but out of shared democratic interests.
Nigeria stands at a delicate intersection between promise and peril. The choices made in moments like this will determine which path it ultimately follows.
And history, as always, will be the final judge!
