By Newspot Nigeria Staff Reporter
A recent comment by Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka has stirred controversy across the country after he criticised the presence of heavily armed security operatives attached to Seyi Tinubu, the son of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The incident took place at a hotel in Ikoyi where Soyinka said he encountered what looked like a military formation guarding a young man he later discovered was the President’s son.
According to Soyinka, the scene resembled a movie set. He said about fifteen fully armed personnel were already stationed outside the hotel when he stepped out. One of them broke off and greeted him as Seyi Tinubu approached. Soyinka said he was shocked by what he described as an over-the-top display of force for someone who holds no public office.
The literary icon told the audience at an investigative journalism awards event that he reported the matter to the National Security Adviser. He said it raised serious concerns about how state security assets are being used and whether they reflect the priorities of a country battling insecurity on multiple fronts.
While Soyinka’s remarks have drawn widespread support from many Nigerians who feel the elite are overprotected while ordinary citizens remain exposed, others are taking a different view. Some believe Seyi Tinubu and other members of the First Family should receive security not as a favour but as a matter of policy.
Those in support argue that harming a member of the President’s immediate family could have national consequences. They say that protection should not be based on who holds office alone but also on who may become a target due to their proximity to power. Security experts point out that in countries like the United States the children of presidents often receive official protection whether or not they hold public roles.
The current system in Nigeria does not offer clear rules about who qualifies for protection. Security for presidential family members is provided at the discretion of the President or the National Security Adviser. Critics say this lack of transparency invites public suspicion and inconsistent treatment.
What many observers are now calling for is a formal structure that outlines who gets protected and why. They believe it will not only reduce public outrage but also help security agencies plan better and avoid avoidable mistakes.
The Presidency has not issued a response to the situation or to Soyinka’s comments. But the national conversation is far from over. What began as a critique of one security detail has become a larger discussion about fairness, responsibility and the meaning of public service in a democracy.
_—Newspot Nigeria
