After Turaki’s Report, Who Will Nigeria’s Institutions Protect—The Rule of Law or One Man’s Political Ambition? -By Psychologist John Egbeazien Oshodi

The Engineered Impasse and the Dangerous Parallel NEC

The confrontation at Wadata Plaza is no longer speculative; it has now entered a confrontational phase. As of today, two rival blocs within the PDP are planning to hold parallel National Executive Committee meetings inside the same national Secretariat. One faction is led by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde and the newly elected National Chairman Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN. The other is led by suspended party figures aligned with Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike, who despite his expulsion continues to act as if he still controls the party’s physical structure and internal machinery.

The trigger was the National Convention in Ibadan, which produced a new National Working Committee and formally suspended and expelled Wike, Samuel Anyanwu, Umar Bature, and others. Under party law, that convention, attended by sitting governors and perhaps monitored by INEC, represents the party’s highest authority. Yet despite being expelled, Wike’s associates issued a public notice calling for an emergency NEC and Board of Trustees meeting at the same headquarters and claimed that attendance was mandatory. The invitation was signed by the suspended National Secretary, who no longer holds any constitutional standing.

This is where the crisis becomes dangerous. The PDP has internal rules and disciplinary powers. A convention has been held, officers have been elected, and suspensions have been issued. Wike and others have lost their legal standing inside the party, yet they continue to occupy and operate from the national Secretariat. That is not a disagreement; it is an institutional rebellion. If suspended individuals can physically control an opposition headquarters without consequence, then no political party in Nigeria is safe from executive-backed takeover.

President Bola Tinubu must be honest with himself about the national implications. Wike is abusing political authority under the President’s watch. This is not happening independently of the federal system; it is happening with the protection of a Minister who serves under him. If violence erupts tomorrow, it will be traced back to a preventable decision-making failure at the highest level of government. Wike is not above the PDP constitution, and he is not above national law. If he disagrees with his suspension, his remedy is in court, not in forceful occupation of a headquarters.

Earlier today, the newly elected Chairman Turaki went to the Nigeria Police Force headquarters to formally alert the authorities to the attempted takeover. He warned publicly that those expelled have no legitimacy and will be treated as interlopers. He declared that he would personally lead the new National Working Committee into the Secretariat, stating that the group is prepared to defend the party and defend democracy itself. This is not typical political rhetoric; it is a signal that the lawful actors are prepared to act physically if institutions fail.

Meanwhile, the Wike camp continues to speak as if nothing has changed. Umar Bature denied his expulsion and vowed to attend the Anyanwu-led meeting. A Makinde camp insider questioned the validity of the convention. Elder statesman Bode George dismissed the Anyanwu faction as illegitimate. Former Governor Ahmed Makarfi resigned from the Board of Trustees to avoid further internal complications. Both sides are now speaking as if the ability to enter the building itself determines legitimacy.

The message is clear. This is no longer an ideological disagreement but a physical contest to control a single structure. If the police do not act within the next 24 hours, that struggle will unfold directly in front of them.

When Administrative Silence Becomes Political Complicity

The crisis is worsened by the public perception that state machinery is quietly favoring one faction. Whether the building was sealed earlier or simply restricted is now secondary to the reality that suspended actors remain in physical occupation of the national headquarters while the newly elected leadership remains outside.

This produces a constitutional contradiction. When private actors invade a building, the conflict belongs in court. When government authority is used or tolerated in a way that sustains occupation by suspended individuals, democracy enters a zone of state-assisted illegality. Once possession becomes more powerful than legality, internal party sovereignty dissolves.

At this point one principle must be restated: Wike must go to court if he disputes his suspension. Anything else is a form of internal political insurgency being carried out by actors with access to state power. No democratic order can survive if a sitting Minister is allowed to use federal influence to resist lawful party discipline.

President Tinubu must recognize that this crisis now belongs to him. He cannot distance himself from a conflict being led by one of his own cabinet members. If he allows this to continue, he will be seen as endorsing a political assault on the main opposition party. In constitutional democracies, presidents do not decide who leads the opposition. If they do, democracy becomes performative.

The Police Must Not Choose Tactical Neutrality Today

This moment requires clarity, constitutional steadiness, and a responsible understanding of institutional duty. The Nigerian Police Force is not being accused of conspiracy, but it must be reminded that today is not a day for procedural improvisation. Chairman Kabiru Tanimu Turaki and the newly elected PDP leadership are arriving at Wadata Plaza for their formal inauguration. At this moment, the police face not only a security decision but a democratic and ethical test. They must either enforce legality by protecting the recognized leadership of the party, or stand aside under the appearance of neutrality while suspended actors continue to occupy the premises.

The police cannot play the familiar game of sealing the entire building in order to avoid decision-making. That tactic may create the illusion of control, but in reality it only deepens institutional paralysis and pushes the conflict into the streets. Nigeria is bigger than any one man, and this crisis is bigger than one Minister’s ambitions. If the police seal the headquarters rather than enforce the will of the party convention, they will not be neutral—they will be signaling that possession is more important than legitimacy. That is not policing; it is avoidance disguised as order.

If hesitation is chosen, crisis will not be prevented—it will be activated. Turaki and the newly elected leadership will not walk away. They will arrive with party members and ordinary citizens who see themselves as protectors of democracy. Once lawful actors believe that state institutions have abandoned them, they shift into psychological self-defense. If the police are seen blocking legitimate leaders while allowing suspended individuals to remain inside, citizens may intervene physically to reclaim what they believe has been stolen. Such confrontation will not arise from aggression but from a collective belief that the State failed to protect constitutional rights.

This crisis can still be prevented with one lawful intervention: allow and protect the rightful PDP leadership as they take control of their Secretariat. Nigeria does not need force today—it needs institutional legitimacy. The request is not partisan; it is constitutional. The police have within their authority the ability to prevent conflict before it manifests.

Nyesom Wike must also absorb the lessons life keeps offering him. He did not learn from the Yerima incident, where emotional escalation collided with disciplined uniformed authority. Now, on a national stage, he is repeating the same behavioral pattern—using police, administrative mechanisms, and legal maneuvering as tools for personal political combat. But this time the consequences are larger than ego. They involve the democratic stability of the nation and the mental security of millions watching institutional behavior.

Nigeria has tolerated emotional governance before, but this may be the last moment before such behavior becomes irreversible. The country remains larger than one political figure. Systems must outlive personalities. No public official, no matter their past status or sense of self-importance, is greater than constitutional process.

This is the moment for calm enforcement, not calculated silence.

The Psychological and Security Emergency

From a forensic psychological standpoint, the language, posture, and behavior emerging from both sides indicate a rapid collapse in trust in institutional protection. When a senior lawyer and party chairman publicly states that he is ready to die if necessary, it signals that the individual perceives the legal system as exhausted. When suspended actors continue occupying a national headquarters without consequence, it signals that deterrence has failed. When police neither enforce control nor prevent unlawful occupation, it signals confusion about authority itself.

Democracies rarely collapse through a dramatic single event. They decline through tolerated illegality, prolonged uncertainty, and repeated institutional hesitation. When political actors begin to conclude that physical possession of a property outweighs legal legitimacy, they enter a mental state where force is psychologically justified. That is the point at which court orders lose meaning and democratic structures become stage props. Institutions remain standing, but their regulatory function is gone. The system becomes appearance without substance — a façade democracy.

The President Must Make a Constitutional Decision Today

All constitutional responsibility now rests with one office: that of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Silence does not calm the situation; it accelerates it. If this crisis continues unchecked, history will not remember it as a party dispute but as the moment a President allowed a Minister to wage institutional war against the opposition under the protection of federal authority.

No democratic President can permit a suspended bloc to remain inside an opposition headquarters while the party’s lawful leaders remain outside. No President can claim neutrality while a federal Minister continues to undermine the internal constitution of a political party. In a democracy, Presidents must not decide who leads the opposition, but they must ensure that no Minister interferes with it.

Three actions are now required:

1. A direct presidential order instructing Nyesom Wike to cease all factional activities and pursue any legal claims only through the court system, as every other Nigerian must.

2. A formal directive from the Attorney General restoring unrestricted access and operational control to the recognized and elected PDP leadership.

3. A police enforcement mandate to secure legal authority, protect life, and prevent confrontation — not to stand at the gates watching two groups face each other.

Anything less becomes an official endorsement of disorder.

Final Therapeutic Warning

Nigeria now stands on the edge of a psychological and democratic fracture that will not be easily repaired. If confrontation occurs today, it will not be an accident; it will be the predictable outcome of hesitation, silence, and institutional avoidance. Democracies are not sustained by buildings, court orders, or police barricades. They survive when institutions enforce legality without fear, favoritism, or emotional loyalty to personalities.

Nigeria needs a strong opposition party to remain a functioning democracy. One individual, no matter how politically forceful, cannot be allowed to wage personal war against a political structure representing nearly half of the nation’s democratic space. A country where one man can paralyze an opposition institution is no longer operating under constitutional balance — it has entered personality-driven governance.

If the police play procedural games, if they seal buildings instead of enforcing legality, or appear to protect suspended individuals over elected leaders, they will unintentionally trigger the very crisis they seek to avoid. If President Tinubu remains silent while his Minister dismantles internal party democracy under his watch, then the people may have no choice but to go to that building today. Not violently, not destructively, but peacefully — as democratic witnesses and constitutional protectors.

There is now a widespread public perception that Nyesom Wike “owns the courts in Abuja” and uses police structures as political instruments. Whether this perception is accurate or exaggerated is not even the central issue — the psychological reality is that millions believe it. That belief alone destabilizes democratic trust. But this time the outcome may be different. The newly elected PDP leadership has chosen to move forward without him, and there is now a determined national mood that personal power cannot override collective legitimacy forever.

The nation must therefore choose:

Remain a constitutional democracy — imperfect but anchored in law, pluralism, and restraint,

or drift into a climate where political buildings are heavily guarded, but legitimacy is determined by whoever controls the gate.

If today ends in chaos, historians will not write that Nigeria simply “had a disagreement.”

They will write that institutions hesitated when they should have acted.

And yet, there is still hope — that Nigeria can choose maturity over impulse, law over emotion, democracy over personal war.

The world is watching.

But more importantly, Nigerians are watching themselves.

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.