JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
For two days in Abuja, Nigeria was confronted with an uncomfortable truth: the country is not just fighting insecurity on the ground; he is also losing control of the narratives around him.
At the conference hosted by the National Counter-Terrorism Centre, the Office of the National Security Adviser and supported by the UKAid-funded Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG) project, media professionals, academics, military and security personnel, civil society actors and religious figures reached a rare consensus: the way Nigeria defines and describes conflict is increasingly shaping how that conflict evolves.
At the center of the conversation was the keynote speech by the Honorable Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris. His message was clear and deliberate; words matter and, in fragile environments, they can stabilize or flare up.
“The definitions are not neutral,” he warned. If used carelessly, they reinforce stereotypes, deepen divisions and erode trust between citizens and institutions. 0When used responsibly, they create understanding and support cooperation. This distinction is now critical for Nigeria. A familiar model has taken hold in Nigeria’s conflict zones. Violence erupts, and before the facts are fully established, narratives are quickly framed along ethnic, religious, or professional lines.
The complexity of insecurity, whether driven by crime, land pressure or governance failures, is reduced to simplistic labels. These labels, once amplified by newspaper headlines, social media and sometimes even official statements, become consolidated in public perception.
What the Abuja conference made clear is that this model is no longer harmless. In fact it is dangerous.
Media representatives recognized the pressure of having to report quickly in a highly competitive information environment. But they also admitted that speed too often came at the expense of accuracy and context, creating room for speculation and distortion.
Military representatives highlighted the challenge of communicating in real time during operations. However, they recognized that premature or inaccurate claims can create confusion, contradict reality on the ground, and inadvertently validate unverified claims.
Civil society voices added a critical dimension. Communities at the receiving end of such narratives often feel collectively profiled and unfairly targeted. This erodes trust, discourages cooperation with security agencies and ultimately undermines the broader effort to restore peace.
Language as an operational tool
From a security perspective, the message was even more direct. The National Coordinator of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, Maj. Gen. Adamu Garba Laka, stressed that terminology is not only a communication issue, but also an operational one.
It drew particular attention to the dangers of stereotyping and ethnic profiling in both public discourse and security operations. When such practices go unchecked, they can undermine intelligence gathering, weaken cooperation between communities and security agencies, and ultimately hinder national and regional security objectives.
In conflict environments, where success often depends on timely and credible information, trust is essential. Language that alienates communities or suggests collective guilt undermines trust and creates barriers to cooperation.
The Coordinator also highlighted that platforms such as the Abuja conference are essential to promote more precise, balanced and professional use of the language among institutions. In an era where information spreads instantaneously, the cost of mischaracterization is higher than ever.
His central point was clear: responsible terminology is not about political correctness, but about operational effectiveness.
This perspective was reinforced by Angola’s ambassador, Jose Bamokina Zau, warning that the definition of security challenges often determines the solutions that follow.
When definitions are simplistic or partial, policies risk overlooking root causes or, worse, exacerbating the very problems they seek to solve.
Across Africa, he noted, conflicts are too often reduced to identity narratives that obscure deeper structural factors such as socioeconomic inequality, governance deficits, environmental pressures and the disruptive influence of emerging technologies.
Africa’s diversity cannot be reduced to narrow labels without distorting reality. And when reality is distorted, policy becomes ineffective.
It also raised a critical issue, narrative ownership. African voices, he argued, must lead the definition of African realities. While international partnerships remain valuable, framing local conflicts must reflect lived experiences, not external assumptions.
For his part, the Ambassador of Rwanda to Nigeria, His Excellency Ambassador Moses Rugema, reflected on the 1994 genocide that occurred in his country, noting how incitement, hatred and ethnic stereotypes spread and then often reinforced through official channels have led to devastating consequences.
However, he noted that Rwanda’s subsequent recovery illustrates how deliberate leadership and a coherent policy of social engagement shape the national narrative away from ethnic categorization and emphasize shared national identity, fostering reconciliation, cohesion and stability, and healed wounds to make Rwanda an international model of reconciliation.
At the heart of the Abuja discussions was a simple but powerful truth. Security isn’t just about strength; it’s about trust.
When communities feel labeled or stereotyped, they withdraw. When they retreat, intelligence dries up. And when intelligence weakens, security operations suffer. This is the hidden cost of careless language.
The Minister warned against attributing security challenges to ethnic or religious identities, stressing that such framing risks profiling entire communities due to the actions of a few. In a country as diverse as Nigeria, this is not only insensitive, but also strategically harmful. One of the most important outcomes of the conference was the shift from blame to shared responsibility.
The media shapes public perception. The military shapes official narratives. Civil society reflects community realities. When these actors operate without coordination, contradictions emerge and trust breaks down. But when they align around shared standards, clarity improves and credibility is strengthened.
In today’s digital environment, where propaganda, disinformation and misinformation spread rapidly, this alignment is no longer optional.
From these deliberations a clear recommendation emerged: the development of a national toolkit for conflict reporting and communication.
This is not about censorship. It’s about responsibility and discipline. The toolkit would establish practical guidelines on how conflicts are reported and communicated. It would discourage the casual use of ethnic and religious identifiers, except where they are verified and necessary. It would strengthen verification standards, ensuring that facts are clearly distinguished from speculation.
It would also promote context, encouraging information that reflects the structural factors of the conflict rather than reducing them to clashes of identity.
For the military, it would provide a framework for clearer and more consistent communication. For the media, it would strengthen professional standards. For communities, it would mean equity and inclusion.
As highlighted several times during the conference, responsible terminology is not a matter of convenience, but rather a requirement for legitimacy, trust and effective safety outcomes.
The stakes are clear: Nigeria has held many conferences. What will determine the importance of this is what happens next. Recommendations must go beyond paper. The proposed toolkit needs to be developed, adopted and incorporated into both media practice and safety communication.
Institutions such as the National Guidance Agency have a vital role to play in reinforcing these values and promoting a culture of responsible communication. Fundamentally it is about national cohesion.
Nigeria cannot afford narratives that deepen division or undermine trust. It cannot afford to ignore the link between language and security. The Abuja conference made one thing clear: Nigeria must take control of its narratives or risk those narratives taking control of its conflicts.
In today’s Nigeria, words do not simply describe reality. They shape it. And unless this reality is shaped with care, discipline and responsibility, the consequences will continue to play out not just in headlines, but in lives.
Dr. Kabir is the CEO of Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited
Post views:
73
