There are continuing issues from the mid-November 2025 confrontational drama in the heart of Abuja, wherein the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, confronted a much younger Naval Officer, Yerima in a tense verbal exchange.
It’s over a disputed piece of land. The confrontation was captured on a viral video, and has since crystallized a fascinating tableau of language, authority, and symbolic power.
Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first Africa-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Agbedo, Professor of Linguistics, Fellow of Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, Amsterdam, is a contributing analyst to USAfrica.
For observers of public administration, civilian-military relations, and the pragmatic dynamics of face, this incident provides a rare, real-time lens into how verbal strategies can reflect, challenge, and negotiate institutional authority.
Nigeria FCT minister Wike’s invective—“Shut up your mouth! Who does that? Will you get out… You are a big fool!” – was not merely the exasperated outburst of a peeved politician. It constituted a series of face-threatening acts (FTAs), aggressively challenging the positive and negative face of a commissioned officer and, by extension, the authority represented by his uniform and rank.
The verbal fisticuffs, analyzed using Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and Culpeper’s Impoliteness framework (1996, 2011), reveal a complex interplay between civilian oversight, military hierarchy, and symbolic sovereignty.
Nigeria FCT minister Wike’s invective—“Shut up your mouth! Who does that? Will you get out… You are a big fool!” – was not merely the exasperated outburst of a peeved politician. It constituted a series of face-threatening acts (FTAs), aggressively challenging the positive and negative face of a commissioned officer and, by extension, the authority represented by his uniform and rank. On the other side, Naval Officer Yerima’s restrained responses,“I am acting on instructions, and I am a commissioned officer” and “I’m an officer. I have integrity”—demonstrated negative politeness and strategic face preservation, reflective of the military’s institutional norms and the semiotic weight of symbolic authority.
Politeness Theory, which distinguishes between positive and negative face, provides a critical lens for understanding this encounter. Positive face refers to an individual’s desire to be appreciated and valued, while negative face embodies the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. Wike’s language simultaneously attacked both dimensions. He undermined Yerima’s professional credibility (positive face) and imposed his civilian authority as a non-negotiable mandate (negative face). Yerima’s responses, in contrast, protected his professional and procedural integrity, adhering to institutional expectations while avoiding escalation. This dynamic mirrors findings in institutional and hierarchical studies, such as those analyzing lecturer-student interactions or political speech, but the Wike–Yerima encounter surpasses prior cases in symbolic and practical stakes, given the national significance of military authority and civilian oversight.
Importantly, the episode foregrounds the semiotic authority of the military uniform. As General Lucky Irabor, former Chief of Defence Staff, observed, Wike’s invective was not simply a personal affront but a challenge to the institutional sovereignty of the Nigerian Armed Forces, a symbolic breach of hierarchy. Unlike verbal confrontations in classrooms, online spaces, or ceremonial speeches, the Wike–Yerima interaction occurred face-to-face, in real time, and under public scrutiny. The uniformed officer embodies not only procedural authority but also the sovereign symbolism of the state, and any verbal assault directed at him resonates beyond the individual, touching on institutional legitimacy and national ethos.
The empirical analysis of the encounter highlights several points of interest. First, it confirms that face-threatening acts are not accidental but strategic. Wike, as the senior civilian authority, sought to assert legal and bureaucratic prerogative over the land dispute, invoking rank, experience, and office to overwhelm resistance. The language was amplified by age references and experiential comparisons (“When I was in school, you had not even resumed school”), which functioned as tools for asserting cognitive and temporal authority. Second, Yerima’s responses demonstrate that politeness is performative as well as procedural: even in the face of aggression, adherence to institutional norms – reference to orders, rank, and integrity – serves as a shield for both personal and symbolic face.
This interaction also illuminates the broader sociopolitical context in Nigeria, where civilian authorities, military institutions, and the rule of law intersect in complex ways. Civilian oversight of the military is constitutionally mandated, yet the practical negotiation of authority is highly contingent on ritualized language, symbolic markers, and face considerations. The confrontation exposes the delicate balance between assertive governance and respectful engagement with institutional actors, highlighting how verbal strategies can either defuse tension or exacerbate it.
Comparing this encounter to prior research underscores both continuity and novelty. Like studies of political speeches and classroom hierarchies (Okugbe & Attashie, 2025; Udoh & Ugochukwu, 2024), the incident demonstrates that FTAs function strategically to assert authority and maintain institutional integrity. However, unlike those studies, which often analyze mediated or ceremonial discourse, the Wike–Yerima exchange is immediate, embodied, and laden with symbolic stakes, offering a rare glimpse into live negotiation of power. Similarly, global studies on digital impoliteness (Almalki, 2025; Hammood & Hussein, 2024) highlight the culturally mediated and context-dependent nature of facework, reinforcing the interpretation that impoliteness is not inherently destructive but strategically deployed to achieve institutional, relational, or political objectives.
The implications of this episode extend beyond the personal reputations of Wike or Yerima. They signal critical lessons for civil-military relations, institutional communication, and governance culture. First, the event underscores the importance of training and awareness on face management in high-stakes environments. Civilian officials must recognize the symbolic weight of uniforms and the semiotic authority carried by military officers, while military personnel must navigate public accountability with disciplined communication. Second, it emphasizes the need for protocols in conflict management, particularly when legal authority, public oversight, and symbolic representation intersect. A lapse in verbal decorum, as the analysis shows, can escalate tensions, undermine public confidence, and complicate the execution of duties.
Moreover, the encounter offers insights for pragmatics scholars and policymakers alike. From a scholarly perspective, it demonstrates that live institutional confrontations provide rich empirical material for studying politeness, impoliteness, and face negotiation, bridging the gap between classroom or digital contexts and the public domain. From a policy standpoint, the study illustrates the practical consequences of verbal strategy on institutional legitimacy, offering an advisory on the wielding of language as an instrument of power. Words, as this episode vividly shows, are not neutral; they are tools, weapons, and instruments of negotiation.
Reflecting on the discourse, one cannot ignore the cultural and societal dimensions. Nigerian public life is frequently punctuated by hierarchical sensitivities, generational differences, and symbolic markers of authority. Age, office, and uniform serve not merely as social identifiers but as semiotic anchors of legitimacy. When Wike’s language attacked Yerima’s integrity, rank, and professional judgment, it was simultaneously an affront to these broader institutional and societal markers. The exchange illustrates that verbal aggression in public discourse carries ripple effects, shaping perceptions of authority, governance, and national order.
Finally, the Wike–Yerima confrontation invites a critical reflection on the ethics of communication in governance. While assertiveness is essential for public officials, unchecked verbal aggression risks undermining both institutional hierarchy and public trust. Similarly, adherence to procedural politeness, while protective, must not be mistaken for passivity; disciplined, principled communication can assert authority and maintain face without escalation. This dual lesson – assertive accountability balanced with respectful engagement – is a central takeaway for public discourse in Nigeria and elsewhere.
In conclusion, the confrontation is more than a momentary spectacle; it is a microcosm of face, power, and symbolic authority in institutional life. Wike’s impoliteness, though aggressive, was intelligible within the context of civilian oversight and the exercise of office, while Yerima’s politeness illustrates strategic face-preservation under hierarchical constraints. The semiotic weight of the uniform and commissioned rank amplifies the encounter’s significance, situating it at the intersection of law, governance, and symbolic sovereignty. For scholars, policymakers, and public officials, the episode reinforces that words are instruments of power, and face is a strategic resource. The challenge is to wield language with discernment, respecting institutional norms, symbolic authority, and the delicate balance between assertiveness and decorum. As Nigeria navigates complex governance challenges, episodes like this offer invaluable lessons. In the interplay of language and authority, how we speak is inseparable from how power is enacted, contested, and legitimated.
The Wike–Yerima encounter, therefore, is both a teachable moment and a rich empirical site.
It reminds us that public discourse is more than information transfer; it is a negotiation of identity, legitimacy, and institutional integrity, where every utterance carries weight and every word counts.
For practitioners of governance, scholars of pragmatics, and citizens of democratic societies, understanding the dynamics of politeness, impoliteness, and symbolic authority is not merely academic; it is essential for sustaining functional, respectful, and credible institutions.
