By Bala Ibrahim.

The altercation between the minister of the Federal capital territory Abuja, Nigeria, Barrister Nyesom Wike and Naval officer, Lieutenant Yarima, has opened a new chapter in the place of principles, power and pride. Yes, each has a seat, and they need to sit where they should sit. When power, which by definition, stands for the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way, particularly the kind of power that is utilised with pride and arrogance, comes in collusion with a principled personality, the outcome would result in Sir Newton’s third law of motion, which states that, for every action, there would be an equal but opposite reaction.

In other words, when power is poorly paraded with pride, on a person that has principles, he would react proportionally, in a manner that would neutralize the paraded brigandage. And exactly that’s what happened in Abuja on Tuesday. As a result, everything in the chain and command machinery of Nigeria’s Security system, is now undergoing a reset, it seems. It is also the ambition of this article, to see a change in the political setting of the system.

I’ve seen video clips of the Inspector General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, making an unambiguous statement, to the effect that, the police must desist from engaging in unlawful activities, including escorting people to settle land-related maters or disputes. I don’t know what prompted those remarks, but when juxtaposed against the circumstances of the Wike/Yarima drama, the statement can only be called, apt. We all know that it is the duty of the police to police the society, for our collective comfort, and in the discharge of that responsibility, some people in power, are assigned police personnel, for protection and the smooth execution of their legal duties. But sometimes, inferiority complex comes to play amongst those to whom the police are attached.They use the police wrongly, thereby making them, knowingly or unknowingly, accomplices in the commission of such crimes.

Public servants are people employed by the government, either through election or appointment, to perform public duties, including political appointees, security agents and career civil servants. They are paid to work for the public and are responsible for serving the interests of the public, rather than humiliating or intimidating them. But when such people come to power with an exaggerated sense of purpose, they become arrogant or too proud, to the extent that they always look down on others. With time, a new sense of entitlement comes in, to make them develop the feeling of excessive self-importance or superiority over everyone.

If care is not taken, pursuant to this self developed sense of self worth, or abilities to do wonders, they can begin undermining the principal, in order for them to be on the throne, rather than serving the man on the throne. Yes, science has since established that, through justifiable research. Because of their feeling of excessive self pride, the word fool, will become a permanent resident in their mouth. At the slightest feeling of insecurity, they would call you a fool. When in actual sense, the reverse is the case. In his song, Foolish pride, Jimmy Cliff, the Jamaican reggae and soul musician, called them the selfish people with foolish pride:

Foolish pride will bring you helpless.
Foolish pride, will bring you emptiness.
Foolish pride, is only play and just,
Your small mind, you will find or you incline.
Foolish pride can bring you stormy day. Foolish pride, can eat our heart away. Foolish pride can lead your heart astray. suffer you, wake you up and make you cry. Selfishness, is what you′re thinking of. But it’s all foolishness, just to glorify, glorify, glorify self. Foolish, foolish, foolish, foolish, foolish pride.

It is however heartening, to hear and see the national unanimity in defence of the displayed behaviour of young naval officer Yarima, including the volume of gifts that are coming to him from good samaritans. I am particularly happy with the position of the military high command, which has also commended the officer for doing that which he was trained to do. The government is today facing multifaceted challenges, with poor public perception as the major one. The critics would always want to see a glass half full from the position of half empty.

As supporters of the government, our task is to help in correcting these misinterpretations, by highlighting the good sides of the efforts being done, and where necessary, calling on the government to make the kind of changes that will remove from the system, those people whose nuisance value, by far outweighs their political value. Because, it may be the case of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Equally important, with respect to the displayed discipline by the young officer Yarima, is the need to rejig our conscience, in order to position properly, the place of power, principles and pride.

By:

Inuwa Waya

In its general sense, nature refers to the physical world and everything in it that is not made or caused by humans. Rainfall, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and climatic conditions are all part of what is often called Mother Nature. Scientifically, nature includes both living and nonliving things. Philosophically, nature may be defined as the inherent or essential quality of something — that which truly represents its being. In the case of human beings, human nature refers to what mankind is capable of doing or becoming in any given situation.

Definition of Human Nature

In simple terms, human nature refers to the fundamental traits, qualities, and behaviors inherent in human beings. It is a set of inborn tendencies and capacities — mental, moral, and emotional — that shape how people think, feel, and act. Over centuries, philosophers have examined and debated the true meaning of human nature from different perspectives.

Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives

Aristotle emphasized reason as the distinguishing feature of humanity and the key to achieving a flourishing and virtuous life. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that human beings are driven primarily by self-interest, fear, and the desire for survival. He concluded that human nature is fundamentally selfish, competitive, and security-seeking.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis viewed human nature as a conflict between three forces — the Id (instinctual desires), the Ego (rational self), and the Superego (moral conscience). Similarly, evolutionary theorists explain human behavior in terms of genetically inherited traits and the struggle for survival. Modern science has since recognized that human nature is complex, flexible, and adaptive.

Karl Marx, from a materialist standpoint, argued that human nature is best understood through practical and material conditions of life, which are revealed in the progression of history. For Marx, the economic and social structures in which people live fundamentally shape their consciousness and behavior.

Human Nature and the State of Nature

From these analyses, it is evident that human nature encompasses both good and evil, since human beings are born with the potential for either. Which of these dominates depends largely on human behavior and choices, particularly after emerging from the so-called state of nature.

The contrasting theories of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) are significant in understanding human nature within and beyond the state of nature. In his famous work Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued that life in the state of nature was a “war of every man against every man,” where existence was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this chaos, human beings entered into a social contract, surrendering some of their liberties to a powerful sovereign in exchange for peace and security.

Rousseau, in contrast, believed that human beings were naturally good, gentle, and compassionate. He saw the state of nature as peaceful and guided by pity and empathy. For Rousseau, it was the rise of society, the acquisition of property, and the emergence of inequality that corrupted and enslaved mankind by replacing natural compassion with jealousy and ambition.

Religion and the Moral Dimension

Long before philosophical debates about the state of nature, religion had already offered guidance on human behavior. Despite differences in belief systems, all the major world religions provide moral codes and ethical principles for harmonious living. They call upon humanity to avoid corruption, evil, selfishness, deceit, and violence, and to embrace righteousness, justice, compassion, honesty, and respect.

It is not in the true nature of mankind for the powerful to oppress the weak or for the rich to exploit the poor. In the modern world, humanity celebrates constitutional democracy, freedom, and human rights, including the right to acquire property. Yet these must be exercised with responsibility and moral restraint.

It appears, however, that human beings have not learned enough from the first human transgression in the Garden of Eden, as described in both Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions. Selfishness, lies, greed, deceit, and the lust for power and wealth continue to shape the character of humanity in the 21st century.

Human Nature in History

The craving for domination and control has led human beings to destroy one another purely for selfish or parochial reasons. Militarism, imperialism, and the desire for conquest led to the death of almost 100 million people during the First and Second World Wars.
In 2003, false claims about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction led to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. In the United Kingdom, journalist Andrew Gilligan resigned from the BBC, and government scientist Dr. David Kelly died by suicide amid the controversy surrounding the war.

The Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed, and the wider Bosnian War that claimed around 100,000 lives, revealed how ethnic hatred can override humanity’s moral compass. The perpetrators, including Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, were later convicted for genocide and war crimes by the International Tribunal.
Similarly, ethnic conflict in Rwanda in 1994 led to the genocide of over one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus at the hands of Hutu extremists.

The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) claimed an estimated two million lives, mainly due to famine and conflict. At its conclusion, the Nigerian government adopted the policy of “No victor, no vanquished” and introduced programs of Reconstruction, Reconciliation, and Reintegration to rebuild national unity.

On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks were launched against the United States by 19 al-Qaeda members involving four hijacked aircraft. Nearly 3,000 people were killed. In response, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban regime, and began a war that lasted twenty years, costing around 200,000 lives.

The Korean War (1950–1953), fueled by ideological and imperial rivalry resulted in over two million deaths, both military and civilian.

The Gaza conflict represents another contemporary manifestation of human selfishness and struggle for dominance. Rooted in territorial occupation, political control, and ethnic-religious tensions, the conflict has caused immense suffering, displacement, and loss of lives for decades. Civilians, particularly women and children, often bear the heaviest toll, highlighting the enduring capacity of human ambition and aggression to override compassion and justice. This modern conflict underscores how disputes over land, power, and ideology continue to produce cycles of violence reminiscent of humanity’s long history of selfishness and moral failings.

These examples illustrate that war and violence are enduring manifestations of the darker side of human nature. They remind us that human progress in knowledge and technology does not always translate into moral advancement, — evidence that the struggle between virtue and vice continues.

The Modern Face of Human Selfishness

The selfish tendencies of humankind have not only expressed themselves through wars and political domination but have also taken subtler, more sophisticated forms in the modern age. Today, the pursuit of profit and power often overrides compassion and moral responsibility even in fields meant to preserve life and promote well-being.

The defense industry, for example, has grown into one of the world’s most profitable enterprises. Nations invest billions of dollars annually in weapons research, arms production, and military technology, often at the expense of healthcare, education, and social welfare. Conflicts that could be resolved through diplomacy are prolonged because warfare sustains economic interests. In many cases, peace becomes less profitable than war.

Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry, which should exist primarily to protect and improve human health, has been increasingly driven by the logic of profit rather than compassion. Many pharmaceutical companies have been accused of exploiting human suffering by setting exorbitant prices for life-saving drugs and producing medications that encourage dependency. Instead of focusing on preventive healthcare and affordable cures, they prioritize products that ensure continuous consumption and sustained revenue. Human health, rather than being a moral duty, has become a lucrative commodity.

The medical profession, once regarded as a noble calling, guided by ethics and empathy, has also been affected by commercialization. The rapid privatization of healthcare has created a system where access to quality medical care is often determined by wealth rather than need. In many parts of the world, hospitals and clinics operate more like profit-oriented corporations than humanitarian institutions. The spirit of compassion that once defined medicine is steadily being replaced by economic calculation and institutional bureaucracy.

Nowhere is the selfish dimension of human nature more visible than in the political sphere. In Europe and the United States, for example, politicians and governments often struggle to separate national interest from self-interest, especially in the realm of foreign policy. The situation in Africa is particularly concerning. In many countries, independence and the adoption of democratic governance have been overshadowed by the rise of self-serving political elites, whose personal ambitions and appetite for power outweigh their commitment to public welfare. For such leaders, governance becomes not a sacred trust but an avenue for personal enrichment and control. Resources intended for education, healthcare, and infrastructure are diverted into private hands, while the wider population continues to endure poverty, inequality, and social decline. Elections, instead of being genuine expressions of the people’s will, frequently become arenas of manipulation, intimidation, and violence. In such environments, individuals who lack integrity, competence, and vision are elevated to positions of power, not because they reflect the hopes of the people, but because they serve the interests of those who control the machinery of the state.

Yet, despite this bleak reality, hope remains. Across the continent, there are leaders who embody the nobler side of human nature — leaders who view power not as entitlement but as responsibility. They pursue policies based on justice, accountability, national development, and the renewal of civic trust. Their example demonstrates that while selfishness is undeniably part of human nature, so too is the capacity for empathy, wisdom, and moral leadership. The struggle between these two tendencies continues to shape the political destiny of nations.
The media, which should serve as the guardian of truth and the voice of the people, has also become entangled in the web of human selfishness. In many societies, media institutions no longer act as neutral observers or platforms for balanced discourse. Instead, they are often influenced by political agendas, economic interests, and ideological alliances. Information is selectively reported, exaggerated, suppressed, or distorted to shape public opinion in ways that serve particular interests. As a result, the media has become a powerful tool for both enlightenment and manipulation. Rather than fostering critical thinking and unity, it can inflame divisions, reinforce prejudice, and distract societies from genuine moral and social challenges. When truth becomes negotiable and reality becomes a matter of narrative, the moral compass of society becomes blurred, and the cycle of selfishness persists under the guise of information. In his scientific and moral judgement, Stephen Hawking ( 1942 – 2018) warned about the consequences of mankind’s selfishness and the moral failure. In his” Brief Answers to the Big Questions (2018), the late physicist argued that if human beings continue to be driven by greed, aggression, and the reckless pursuit of power, the earth my eventually become uninhabitable for humans.

Conclusion

From the first human transgression in the Garden of Eden, as described in both Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions, to the complexities of the twenty-first century, the journey of humankind has been marked by the constant struggle between virtue and vice. We are beings capable of wisdom, compassion, courage, and sacrifice — yet we are also capable of greed, aggression, and the pursuit of power at the expense of others.

The same intellect that made scientific discoveries, heal diseases, and creates works of beauty, can also build systems of domination and exploit mankind for personal or political gain. Human progress in knowledge and technology does not automatically lead to moral progress. A society may construct great cities and powerful nations and yet still fail to construct justice, fairness, or respect for the dignity of life.

For human beings to live in peace, the development of society must be accompanied by the cultivation of values. Material advancement must coincide with the creation of social conditions that nurture empathy, restraint, and moral responsibility. Without empathy, there can be no genuine harmony; without justice, there can be no lasting peace.

Ultimately, the fate of humanity depends on a choice renewed in every age: whether we allow selfishness to rule our actions, or whether we elevate conscience above desire. Human nature will remain an unfinished story until mankind turns sincerely toward the values that God has commanded — mercy, justice, humility, and truth. Only then shall we rise from what we are to what we are meant to become.

By Farooq Kperogi

I have read competing perspectives on the correctitude (or lack thereof) of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Lt. A.M. Yerima’s conduct in the viral video of their gladiatorial rhetorical combat. My concern, however, is different.

Several social media commentators, irrespective of partisan affiliations, appear united in proclaiming that Wike finally “met his match” in Yerima.

Interestingly, the Wike-Yerima confrontation reminded me of a puzzlingly paradoxical but deeply philosophical aphorism we were fond of as student union activists in the 1990s.

We used to say that when an unstoppable force (which Wike fancies himself as and which many people ascribe to him in light of his unfailingly boisterous, venomous-tongued cantankerousness that causes him to get whatever he wants all the time) meets an immovable object (which Yerima unwittingly became), something has to give.

Yerima has emerged, without planning to, as the first person, at least publicly, to make it clear to Wike that although Wike has acquired well-earned notoriety as a vicious, perpetually drunk, psychotic pocket tyrant who railroads people into kowtowing to him through intimidation, boozy taunts, and primitive vituperative aggression, he is “not a fool” who yields to inebriated, power-drunk, geriatric bullies.

Yerima’s repeated refrain of “I am not a fool, sir,” in response to Wike’s crude, unwarranted insults transcended a mere forceful retort. It communicated respectful but firm defiance to an insufferably self-important ministerial hoodlum.

Many people almost heard Yerima as saying, “I am not Fubara, sir.” Fool and Fubara almost have the same phonetic beginnings. Of course, I know that this is taking an innocuous, unplanned resistance to pocket tyranny to a partisan terrain.

But I am using Fubara here as the most recognized referent for disempowering spinelessness in the face of Wikean terrorization. And it helps that fool and Fubara share a curious, even if meaningless, initial pronunciational kinship, at least in demotic Nigerian English speech.

My second thought is on the admirable unflappability, courage, and self-assuredness that Yerima evinced in his encounter with Wike. There are vast generational, symbolic, social, and even political asymmetries between the two. But Yerima was not the least perturbed. He stood his ground and caused Wike to beat a humiliating retreat.

You don’t buy that kind of valor and self-confidence in the market. You unconsciously cultivate it from an impressionable age. It came as no surprise when it emerged that Yerima is the scion of an upper-crust military family.

Yet, at least from the video clips I saw, Yerima didn’t come across as arrogant or as someone who has a chip on his shoulder. But he showed that he wasn’t a fainthearted pushover, ether.

His father must have taught him a version of one of my favorite Malcolm Xian exhortations: “Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.”

Yerima was polite, cordial, and conciliatory, but when Wike metaphorically put his rude, lowbred, insult-stained hand on the young man, he sent Wike to the rhetorical cemetery. Malcolm X characterized that as teaching people not to “suffer peacefully.”

My final thought on the confrontation is the almost involuntary predilection for gerontocratic egotism among older people in Nigeria when they have any dealings with younger people. I called this “reverse ageism” in an August 11, 2022, article I wrote titled “Reverse Ageism as a Tool to Gag Criticism in Nigeria.”

I reproduce the last few paragraphs of the article below because they speak to Wike’s gerontocratic putdown of Yerima as a “small boy” who was in “primary school” when he graduated from the university.

I wrote:

“One of Nigeria’s enduringly lumbering cultural burdens is that it’s hopelessly trapped in regressive reverse ageism, i.e., the idea that only old age, not youth or knowledge, should confer authority on people.

“Everyone who is older than the next person thinks his numerical age bestows some superiority on him over another.

“Emotional and intellectual age are immaterial in this culture of reverse ageism, so that even emotionally and cognitively immature dimwits trapped in adults’ bodies think of themselves as superior to biologically younger but intellectually superior people because of the accidents of their years of birth.

“But if you’re older than someone, someone is also older than you are, and the person you’re older than is also older than someone else. It’s an infinite continuum.

“Only backward, lowbrow bumpkins are hung up on age and invoke it to delegitimize valid criticism that they can’t confront with the resources of logic and evidence.

“Anyone who is over the age of 25 is a full-grown adult.”

Everything I wrote in that three-year-old article applies to Wike. Yerima (incidentally, Yerima is the Kanuri word for “prince,” which most northern Nigerian ethnic groups, including people of northern Edo, now bear as a personal name) is infinitely more mature and certainly more dignified than Wike can ever be in a million lifetimes, in spite of his youth.

So, who cares if Wike is older than Methuselah, especially because he behaves like a rambunctious toddler uneasily stuck in an adult’s body?