DSS Must Affirm Its Duty Against Violent Rhetoric, Regardless of Apparent Political Influence: The Case of Minister Nyesom Wike -By Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi

What began as a statement has now become a signal—one that has traveled beyond a studio, beyond a single exchange, and into the psychological bloodstream of a nation. When Nyesom Wike spoke of “shooting” a journalist, the words did not remain within intention. They entered the public mind, and once language backed by authority enters the public mind, it does not leave quietly.

This is where the danger begins—not in what was later clarified, but in what was first released. Power does not speak into emptiness. It speaks into a listening society, and that society interprets tone, context, and possibility. Even when softened afterward, the initial expression lingers. It shapes perception. It creates atmosphere.

And that atmosphere is now thickening.

This is no longer an isolated remark. It is part of a pattern—language that has moved from aggression to imagery of harm. From telling critics to “hug a transformer,” to invoking “fire,” and now to suggesting “shooting.” Each moment stretching the boundary. Each moment testing whether consequence follows. And each time little happens, the boundary shifts again.

This is how normalization settles—not announced, not debated, but absorbed.

At the center of this pattern is a growing perception that some individuals operate with unusual latitude. That their political usefulness places them in a different category—one where correction is delayed, softened, or avoided. Whether explicitly stated or not, that belief is now forming around Nyesom Wike, and it is being reinforced by what is not said as much as by what is said.

Because silence, in moments like this, is never neutral.

When President Bola Tinubu does not instantly address such a moment directly, the public does not wait for explanation—it interprets. Carefully, quietly, but firmly. And the interpretation forming—fairly or unfairly—is that political usefulness may be outweighing institutional discipline. That proximity to power may be softening accountability.

That perception alone is enough to begin eroding trust.

And trust, once thinned, does not return easily.

Meanwhile, Seun Okinbaloye stands in the center of this moment—not only as a journalist, but as a symbol of professional duty. His declaration that he is “not afraid” carries weight, but it also reveals something deeply unsettling. In a stable democratic environment, a journalist should not need to publicly declare courage simply to do his work. The job should demand competence, not bravery.

When bravery becomes necessary, something has already shifted.

That shift is now visible not only within the country, but beyond it. International press bodies, national civil society groups, and global observers have all moved from observation to engagement. Statements have been issued. Concerns have been raised. The language used has been clear: that even hypothetical or exaggerated threats contribute to a climate of fear and weaken democratic discourse.

This is no longer a domestic moment.

It is a watched moment.

And yet, even as global attention intensifies, the expected clarity from the highest level remains indirect, measured, or absent. That absence is being read—not emotionally, but analytically. It is being weighed against political realities, against perceived alliances, against future calculations. And in that weighing, a difficult conclusion begins to form: that restraint may be influenced by continued reliance on Nyesom Wike within broader political strategy.

That is the perception.

And perception, once stabilized at this level, becomes part of the system itself.

But this is precisely where the responsibility must now shift—away from perception, and toward institution.

The Department of State Services.

Because institutions are not built to mirror political convenience. They are built to maintain stability when convenience becomes pressure. They are designed to act before escalation, not after damage.

And this is where the message must be clear—quietly, firmly, and without hesitation:

The DSS must not be afraid.

Not of influence.

Not of proximity to power.

Not of interpretation.

Because once an institution begins to calculate fear, it stops functioning as an institution and begins to adjust itself to circumstance. And when that adjustment happens, the system changes—not visibly, but structurally.

This moment demands the opposite.

A measured, formal engagement—not as confrontation, but as responsibility. Not as punishment, but as documentation. Not as spectacle, but as record.

A record that says: no matter how influential, no matter how politically valuable, no public official operates outside institutional awareness when their words begin to shape instability.

Because without that record, another message quietly replaces it:

That words tied to harm can be spoken…

clarified…

and then absorbed without consequence.

And once that message settles, the system begins to shift.

Journalists begin to calculate instead of question.

Citizens begin to observe instead of speak.

Institutions begin to hesitate instead of act.

This is how democratic space contracts—not through law, but through atmosphere.

There is also a deeper truth forming beneath all of this—the belief that political usefulness can create immunity. That some actors are too essential to confront. That their role in future outcomes places them beyond immediate correction.

If that belief is allowed to stand, it will not remain contained.

Others will learn it.

Others will test it.

Others will expand it.

That is how impunity grows—not declared, but demonstrated.

And that is why this moment must be different.

If the assumption exists that influence guarantees protection, then this is the moment to quietly dismantle that assumption.

Not with noise.

Not with performance.

But with action that is measured and unmistakable.

Because when global attention meets domestic hesitation, institutions must respond—not in words, but in conduct.

The DSS does not need to escalate this moment.

But it cannot ignore it.

Because the signal has already been sent.

And what is done next will determine whether that signal fades—

or settles.

About the Author 

Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist and educator specializing in forensic, legal, clinical, and cross cultural psychology, with expertise in policing, corrections, and public ethical policy. A native of Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, he works at the intersection of psychology, justice, and governance and teaches at Nova Southeastern University and Walden University. Prof. Oshodi is a Black Republican in the United States but belongs to no political party in Nigeria, and his work is guided by justice, good governance, democracy, and Africa’s development. He is the founder of Psychoafricalysis and has authored more than 700 articles and multiple books.