The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has defended the imposition of a curfew ahead of the February 21 area council elections in Abuja, insisting that the measure was within his authority and approved by President Bola Tinubu.
Speaking during a media chat at his office on Monday, Wike maintained that, as the administrative head of the FCT, he had the power to declare movement restrictions for security reasons.
“I have the rights, I am the governor of 3,000 polling units. For security, I have to find out what is going on. I don’t have to be told, I am not a candidate for the election,” the minister stated.
Responding to criticism over his movements during the polls, the former Rivers State governor dismissed suggestions that his presence at some polling units could have influenced the outcome.
“Somebody has said I move about. How many polling units in FCT? FCT has not less than 3,000 polling units. Assuming I went to 10 polling units to check what was going on, how will it affect 3,000 polling units?
“As a candidate, I cannot move around. I must have my agents. As the Chief Security Officer. I have a right to have a view of what is going on and how does it affect, influence the election?” he said.
Wike also attributed the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the council polls to the performance of the Tinubu-led administration, arguing that opposition parties failed to adequately prepare for the exercise.
The minister has faced backlash from opposition figures and civil society groups following the restriction of human and vehicular movement in the FCT from 8:00 p.m. on Friday to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Among his critics is FCT Senator Ireti Kingibe, who described the decision as autocratic and lacking due consultation.
Kingibe said the imposition of the curfew without broad engagement with key stakeholders was “a direct affront to democratic governance and the constitutional rights of residents”.
“They are citizens of a democratic republic. Any sweeping restriction on their movement and livelihoods must be justified by compelling evidence, subjected to scrutiny, and carried out with transparency,” she said.
The controversy has sparked renewed debate over the balance between security measures and civil liberties in the administration of the nation’s capital.
