Why Nigeria must fix the language of conflict now

For two days in Abuja, Nigeria confronted an uncomfortable truth: the country is not only battling insecurity on the ground; it is also losing control of the narratives that surround it.

The conference hosted by the National Counter Terrorism Centre, Office of the National Security Adviser and su‎pported by the UKAid-funded Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG) project, media professionals, academics, security and military personnel, and civil society actors as well as religious clerics reached a rare consensus: how Nigeria defines and describes conflict is increasingly shaping how that conflict evolves.

At the centre of that conversation was the keynote address by the Honourable Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris. His message was clear and deliberate. Words matter, and in fragile environments, they can either stabilise or inflame.

“Definitions are not neutral,” he warned. When used carelessly, they reinforce stereotypes, deepen divisions, and erode trust between citizens and institutions. When used responsibly, they build understanding and support cooperation. That distinction is now critical for Nigeria. Across Nigeria’s conflict zones, a familiar pattern has taken root. Violence erupts, and before facts are fully established, narratives are quickly framed along ethnic, religious, or occupational lines.

The complexity of insecurity, whether driven by criminality, land pressure, or governance failures, is reduced to simplistic labels. Those labels, once amplified by headlines, social media, and sometimes even official statements, harden into public perception.

What the Abuja conference made clear is that this pattern is no longer harmless. It is, in fact, dangerous.

Participants from the media acknowledged the pressure to report quickly in a highly competitive information environment. But they also conceded that speed has too often come 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. Yet, they recognised that premature or imprecise statements can create confusion, contradict field realities, 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 weakens the broader effort to restore peace.

Language as an operational tool

From the security standpoint, the message was even more direct. The National Coordinator of the National Counter Terrorism Centre, Maj. Gen. Adamu Garba Laka, underscored that terminology is not merely a communication issue; it is an operational one. He drew particular attention to the dangers of stereotyping and ethnic profiling within 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 intelligence, trust is indispensable. Language that alienates communities or suggests collective blame erodes that trust and creates barriers to cooperation.

The coordinator further emphasised that platforms like the Abuja conference are essential in fostering more precise, balanced, and professional use of language across institutions. In an era where information spreads instantly, the cost of mischaracterisation is higher than ever.

His central point was clear: responsible terminology is not about political correctness; it is about operational effectiveness.

This perspective was reinforced by the Angolan ambassador, Jose Bamokina Zau, who warned that the security challenges that are defined often determine the solutions that follow.

When definitions are simplistic or biased, policies risk missing root causes or worse, aggravating the very problems they seek to resolve.

Across Africa, he noted, conflicts are too often reduced to identity narratives that obscure deeper structural drivers such as socio-economic 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.

He also raised a critical issue, narrative ownership. African voices, he argued, must lead in defining African realities. While international partnerships remain valuable, the framing of local conflicts must reflect lived experiences, not external assumptions.

On his part, the Rwandan Ambassador to Nigeria, His Excellency Ambassador Moses Rugema, reflected on the 1994 genocide in his country, noting how incitement, hate, and ethnic stereotyping later spread, often reinforced through official channels, leading to devastating consequences.

He, however, noted the Rwandan subsequent recovery illustrates how deliberate leadership and a consistent policy of societal commitment shape the national narrative and move away from ethnic categorisation and emphasised shared national identity, fostering reconciliation, cohesion and stability to heal the wounds to make Rwanda an international model of reconciliation.

At the heart of the Abuja discussions was a simple but powerful truth. Security is not only about force; it is about trust.

When communities feel labelled or stereotyped, they withdraw. When they withdraw, intelligence dries up. And when intelligence weakens, security operations suffer. This is the hidden cost of careless language.

The minister cautioned against attaching security challenges to ethnic or religious identities, noting that such framing risks profiling entire communities for the actions of a few. In a country as diverse as Nigeria, this is not merely insensitive; it is strategically damaging. One of the most important outcomes of the conference was a 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.

Out of these deliberations emerged a clear recommendation: the development of a national conflict reporting and communication toolkit.