This article is written by Gloria Boma Harry
The recent declaration by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that he would “break by force” into the Yakubu Gowon Stadium if access is denied, has propelled the political friction in Rivers State into a serious constitutional debate. Beyond the local rivalry lies a fundamental question: In a federation, who truly holds the keys to the state’s house?
The Governor’s Executive Supremacy
Under Section 5(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the executive powers of a state are vested solely in the Governor. This authority extends to the “execution and maintenance of the Constitution” and all laws made by the State House of Assembly.
To understand the weight of this power, one must look at the Land Use Act of 1978. This pivotal piece of Nigerian legislation vests the ownership of all land within the borders of a state, including public infrastructure like the Yakubu Gowon Stadium directly in the Governor. He holds this land in trust for the people, acting as the ultimate custodian. Consequently, the Ministry of Sports or the stadium management operates under the direct delegated authority of the Governor’s office.
The Limits of Ministerial Power
While a Federal Minister is a high-ranking official of the Republic, their authority is strictly hierarchical and territorial. According to Section 147 of the Constitution, Ministers are appointed to oversee Federal Ministries; they do not possess “concurrent jurisdiction” over state assets.
In simpler terms, the legal authority of a Federal Minister is vertically aligned with the Federal Government and, in Mr Wike’s specific case, horizontally confined to the Federal Capital Territory. There is no legal instrument in Nigeria that permits a Federal Cabinet member to override the administrative or security decisions of a State Governor regarding property owned by that state. To “take by force” a facility under state custody would therefore constitute a direct breach of the Constitutional Separation of Powers.
The Hazard of “Extra-Judicial” Remedies
Legally, if a group such as the Renewed Hope Ambassadors, feels it has been unfairly denied a public venue, the remedy is found in the Judiciary. An application for a Writ of Mandamus could compel the state to grant access if the denial is proven to be “arbitrary, capricious, or purely politically motivated.”
However, threatening “force” bypasses this civilised process and enters the realm of criminal liability. The legal implications are severe:
Criminal Trespass & Mischief: Under the Criminal Code Act, any unauthorised entry or damage to public property (such as “breaking” into a stadium) is a punishable offence.
Incitement to Violence: Public officials have a higher duty of care. Rhetoric that encourages followers to disregard state law can be classified as an incitement to a breach of public peace, which is a significant security risk in a volatile political climate.
A Precarious Precedent
Nigeria’s democracy thrives on the delicate balance between federal might and state autonomy. If a Federal Minister can successfully seize a state facility through force, the boundary between the two tiers of government effectively collapses.
The Yakubu Gowon Stadium may currently be a site of pipes and excavation, as the state claims, or it may be a site of political gatekeeping, as the Minister suggests. Regardless, the solution must be found within the courtroom, not at the stadium gates. If the law is ignored to settle a political score today, there will be no law left to protect anyone tomorrow.
The Legal Framework: Statutory Consequences of Forceful Entry
To further understand the gravity of the Minister’s ultimatum, one must examine the specific statutory provisions that govern public order and property in Rivers State. While political rhetoric often enjoys a wide berth, the transition from words to “force” triggers a series of legal mechanisms designed to protect the state’s sovereignty and public assets.
Provisions under the Criminal Code
The Criminal Code Act (and the corresponding laws of Rivers State) is explicit regarding the protection of property and the maintenance of peace. Should any group attempt to “break by force” into the Yakubu Gowon Stadium, they could face charges under several heads:
Forcible Entry (Section 81): This section prohibits entering into land in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace or a reasonable apprehension thereof, even if the person is entitled to enter. The law prioritises public order over the perceived right of access.
Malicious Injuries to Property (Section 451): Any act that involves “breaking” gates, locks, or fences of a government facility constitutes an offence. Given the stadium’s status as a multi-billion naira public asset, the penalties for such damage are particularly stringent.
Unlawful Assembly (Section 69): When three or more persons assemble in a manner that causes persons in the neighbourhood to fear that they will tumultuously disturb the peace, the assembly becomes unlawful. A “forceful” move on a state facility would almost certainly fall under this definition.
The Immunity Question and Ministerial Bounds
It is a common misconception that federal appointments provide a “shield” against state laws. While the President and Governors enjoy immunity under Section 308 of the Constitution, Federal Ministers do not. A Minister remains subject to the laws of the state in which they are present.
Furthermore, the Public Order Act, though its requirement for police permits has been modified by judicial precedent, still empowers the Commissioner of Police to manage rallies to prevent violence. If the State Government declares a site unsafe due to ongoing construction, any attempt to bypass that declaration through force would be viewed as a defiance of a lawful administrative order, potentially leading to a direct confrontation with the very security agencies the Minister serves to support at the federal level.
The Rivers State Physical Planning Law
Beyond the Criminal Code, the Rivers State Physical Planning and Development Law grants the state government the power to seal or restrict access to any site deemed a “work zone” or structurally compromised. If the site engineer has certified the Yakubu Gowon Stadium as hazardous due to excavation, “forceful entry” becomes not just a legal transgression but a significant public safety liability. Should an injury occur during a forced rally, the organisers could be held civilly and criminally liable for gross negligence.
Final Reflections
The law provides a clear path for resolving disputes over public space: the courtroom. By threatening to “do the needful” by force, the FCT Minister invites a scenario where the law is replaced by the whim of the powerful. In the volatile ecosystem of Rivers State politics, such a precedent is a fire that, once lit, may be impossible to extinguish.
