No Matter The Push Or Frustration, Wike’s Violent Language Highlights The Need For Nigerian Leaders To Choose Dialogue Over Threats

Nigerians, along with people around the world, were left stunned as they watched Barr. Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), deliver a controversial speech during the commissioning of the Apo-Wassa Road, a key part of the Outer Southern Expressway (OSEX) project, on Friday. His words, broadcast on TV and social media, immediately sparked widespread reaction.

In his address, Wike forcefully declared that no amount of criticism would derail the administration’s efforts to complete major infrastructural projects in Abuja, including the controversial renovation of the International Conference Centre (ICC), which was recently renamed in honor of President Bola Tinubu.

However, Wike’s remarks went far beyond addressing political opponents or critics. His words became a direct challenge to any form of dissent, as he declared, “If you want to die because we named the refurbished International Conference Centre after Mr. President, go and die. I have land to bury you.” These comments, though cheered by his supporters, shocked many others, raising serious concerns about the tone of political dialogue in Nigeria.

In the broader context of Wike’s rhetoric, this inflammatory statement raises important questions about the responsibility of leadership and the psychological impact of such language in a democratic society. While his remarks may stem from frustration or a desire to defend the administration, they cross a dangerous line that undermines democratic values. Rather than fostering an environment of constructive criticism and open debate, Wike’s words create a climate where dissent is not just silenced but threatened. This kind of rhetoric, far from encouraging healthy dialogue, sets a precedent for political discourse rooted in hostility rather than respect.

The Need for Sensitivity and Accountability in Public Leadership

While it is understandable that political figures like Wike may experience frustration with their critics—especially when they feel their work and vision are being undermined—the words chosen to respond to such frustrations must be measured, responsible, and grounded in a spirit of dialogue and constructive engagement. It is one thing to engage in political debate or criticism; it is entirely another to use language that crosses the line into incitement, aggression, and even violence.

No matter the political context or ideological differences, leaders must exercise caution and restraint in the language they use. Wike’s remarks, though perhaps fueled by the heat of political conflict, suggest a pattern of language that is divisive and harmful, contributing to an unhealthy, hostile environment in Nigeria’s political discourse. Political differences should not translate into language that wishes harm upon others—this is a fundamental tenet of civil discourse. In the United States, for instance, no government leader would be allowed to make such comments without facing swift and serious consequences. This discrepancy in how language is treated in different political environments speaks volumes about the need for greater accountability and sensitivity in public office.

The Psychological Ramifications of Wike's Rhetoric

Wike’s use of violent and threatening language is not merely a matter of political disagreement; it carries significant psychological ramifications for both the speaker and the audience.

Creating a Climate of Fear and Division

The statement “I have land to bury you” can be viewed as a form of psychological violence. Such words not only target an individual but also create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe to express dissent. In societies where leaders make public threats, the fear of retribution can stifle political engagement, silence the voices of critics, and ultimately erode democratic values. This type of rhetoric undermines open dialogue and contributes to an environment where disagreement is punished rather than respected.

Defense Mechanism or Emotional Vulnerability?

From a psychological perspective, Wike's statements may also reflect an emotional defense mechanism against criticism. Rather than addressing his critics’ concerns with facts and reasoned argument, he chooses to respond with hostile language. This suggests an underlying vulnerability—leaders who feel threatened or insecure may resort to extreme measures to protect their image. This type of reaction, although designed to shield the individual from perceived harm, often does the opposite by making the leader appear defensive, emotionally volatile, and incapable of engaging with criticism in a mature manner.

The Impact on Public Mental Health
The psychological cost of such language cannot be overstated. When public figures, especially those in leadership positions, use threatening or violent language, it can have a profound impact on the emotional and mental well-being of the public. In Nigeria, where there is already significant economic strain, rising unemployment, insecurity, and a growing mental health crisis, such rhetoric only exacerbates the stress many citizens are experiencing. Language that promotes division and hostility can increase anxiety, fear, and distrust within the public, further isolating those who already feel marginalized.

A Disturbing Pattern of Aggression: “Go and Hang Yourself in the Transformer”

Wike’s remarks are not isolated incidents but rather part of a disturbing and recurring trend in his communication style. Last year, he made a similarly shocking statement when he told Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Senator Ireti Kingibe, a sitting member of the National Assembly, to “Go and hang yourself in the transformer.” This kind of violent, emotionally charged language is not only inappropriate but deeply concerning coming from a leader. It signals an alarming readiness to silence opponents through intimidation, rather than engage with their ideas or concerns in a constructive way.

These recurring statements from Wike reflect a troubling pattern, in which language is weaponized to attack critics and create an atmosphere where political discourse becomes unsafe. The use of death threats—whether figurative or literal—is a dangerous escalation in political rhetoric and should never be normalized. Such language erodes the integrity of democratic systems, where the free exchange of ideas, healthy debate, and the ability to dissent are foundational to progress. When leaders resort to threats rather than reasoned discussion, they undermine the very principles that uphold a functioning democracy.

Why Is the President Silent, and Why Should Wike Apologize?

One of the most troubling aspects of this situation is the silence of President Bola Tinubu, whom Wike is steadfastly defending. In any democratic society, it is the responsibility of leadership to set the tone for discourse within their government. When a senior official like Wike uses violent language against critics, the president should step in to condemn such behavior.

The failure of the president to speak out against this rhetoric speaks volumes about the tone of the administration. In countries where political leaders are expected to model civility and restraint, such language would not be tolerated—there would be immediate backlash, both within the political class and from the public. Silence from Tinubu suggests that either he condones this rhetoric or is unwilling to take a stand against it, both of which are deeply troubling for the health of the nation’s democracy.

If I were in Wike’s position, I would immediately apologize for my statements. Recognizing the harmful impact of my words and taking responsibility for them would be the first step toward healing the divide that such language has created. Unfortunately, Wike’s refusal to apologize only further entrenches the hostility and fear that he has helped to foster.

The Spiritual and Psychological Cost of Wishing Harm on Others

Another significant aspect of Wike’s language is the dangerous spiritual and psychological undercurrents that accompany it. Leaders who use language that wishes harm on others—whether death or suffering—fail to recognize the deeper, often karmic, psychological consequences of such words. The energy we put into the world often returns to us, and wishing harm on others invites negative energy into one’s own life.

Psychologically, wishing harm or death on others often stems from unresolved emotional conflicts, fear, and vulnerability. By projecting these feelings onto others in a public forum, leaders create a self-reinforcing cycle of hostility and aggression. The psychological toll of such behavior can lead to increased emotional distress, isolation, and conflict, not just for the recipient of the words, but for the individual using them as well.

How does Wike know that the harm he wishes upon others will not eventually come back to him? This language, rooted in anger and fear, carries with it a deep psychological risk. Leaders who speak like this may find themselves consumed by the very negativity they project. It is a reminder to all that words are powerful, and the energy we emit often returns to us in ways we cannot predict.

Why Are These Two Major mental Health Associations Silent Over This Behavior?

At a time when mental health is becoming an increasingly important concern in Nigeria, it is deeply troubling that organizations like the Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria (APN) and the Nigerian Psychological Association (NPA) have remained silent in the face of such harmful political rhetoric. These organizations have an ethical responsibility to promote the well-being of Nigerians and to address public behavior that contributes to the worsening of the collective mental health crisis.

Rhetoric that fosters division, fear, and hostility only exacerbates the already fragile psychological state of many Nigerians. By failing to publicly call out leaders for such harmful language, the APN and NPA are neglecting their duty to safeguard the emotional and psychological health of the population. Their silence suggests a lack of commitment to addressing the harmful impact of such rhetoric and further fuels the climate of fear and insecurity in the country.

The Tendency to Avoid Constructive Dialogue

Wike’s response to criticism demonstrates a broader psychological trend where leaders view criticism as an existential threat, rather than as an opportunity for growth and reflection. His language indicates a deep-seated need to protect his ego at all costs, even if it means resorting to hostility. This defensive posture is psychologically detrimental, not just for the leader but also for the society at large

When leaders respond to valid criticism with threats and hostility, they fail to engage with the issues at hand in a meaningful way. Instead of promoting open dialogue and self-reflection, they create an atmosphere where dissent is feared and repressed. This not only harms the democratic process but also contributes to a cycle of emotional reactivity and unresolved conflict.

The Clash with Abati: A Representation of Psychological Defensiveness

The specific clash between Wike and Reuben Abati, a respected political commentator, further highlights the psychological defense mechanisms at play. Abati’s criticism of the ICC renovation and its cost triggered a defensive response from Wike, who chose to attack Abati personally rather than address the substance of his arguments. This reflects a broader psychological pattern of projective identification, where Wike projects his insecurities onto Abati rather than addressing the issues raised in a thoughtful and measured manner.

This defense mechanism is typical of individuals who feel emotionally threatened by criticism. Rather than viewing criticism as an opportunity for growth, they respond by devaluing the critic, dismissing their views, and shifting the focus away from the original issue.

The Role of Power Dynamics in Political Communication

The psychological dynamics of power play a significant role in the rhetoric displayed by Wike. Leaders who feel insecure in their position may resort to aggressive language to maintain control over the political narrative. This tactic, however, often backfires by alienating the very people they aim to lead. The unchecked use of power creates an environment where dissent is not tolerated, and the space for meaningful dialogue becomes increasingly narrow.

Wike’s comments, though aimed at silencing opposition, have the opposite effect—they highlight the fragility of his leadership and the authoritarian tendencies that may be at play. In democratic societies, leaders are expected to tolerate dissent and engage with criticism in a constructive manner. The failure to do so signals an unhealthy concentration of power that stifles open political discourse.

Conclusion: The Need for Emotional Regulation and Responsible Leadership

Wike’s statements, both recent and historical, illustrate a failure to engage with the political process in a responsible and emotionally intelligent manner. Leaders must recognize the power of their words and the psychological impact they can have on the public. Rhetoric that fosters fear, division, and hostility damages the democratic fabric of the country and undermines public trust in government institutions.

For Nigeria to move forward, it is essential that its leaders, including Wike, adopt a more emotionally regulated approach to leadership—one that fosters respect, dialogue, and empathy rather than aggression and fear. Political leaders must prioritize the emotional well-being of their citizens, ensuring that their words and actions contribute to a culture of openness, unity, and growth.