SECURITY EXPERTS MOVE TO END ETHNIC PROFILING IN WEST AFRICA CONFLICT NARRATIVES By Raymond Enoch
In a decisive push to reshape the language of security and restore public trust, leading experts across Nigeria’s civic, military, and academic landscape have sounded a clear warning: words can either fuel conflict—or help end it.
At a high-level virtual dialogue convened on February 10, 2026, Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited (BSIL), in collaboration with the Whiteink Institute for Strategy Education and Research (WISER), brought together thought leaders under the UKAid-supported Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG) project. Their mission was urgent and precise—to confront the dangerous role of ethnic profiling and careless terminology in driving violence across West Africa.
Themed “Contextualizing Definitions and Terminologies to Address Stereotyping and Ethnic Profiling in Discourses and Security Operations,” the dialogue zeroed in on Nigeria’s North West and North Central regions, where mislabeling and identity-based narratives have continued to deepen mistrust and ignite tensions.
Opening the session, SPRiNG Team Leader, Dr. Ukoha Ukiwo, did not mince words. He pointed to mounting evidence that hate speech and divisive rhetoric remain potent triggers of violence. According to him, when security actors fail to apply conflict-sensitive language, even well-intentioned peace efforts risk backfiring—creating what he described as a “boomerang effect” that worsens instability.
Across the two-hour session, a consistent theme emerged: labels matter—and they can be dangerous.
Dr. Fatima Akilu of the Neem Foundation emphasized that labels are rarely neutral. By reducing individuals to ethnic identities, she warned, societies risk erasing complexity and reinforcing harmful stereotypes that marginalize entire communities.
From a governance standpoint, Ambassador Sarki Usman stressed that ethnic profiling is not just unjust—it is ineffective. He argued that stigmatizing communities undermines intelligence gathering, weakens cooperation, and ultimately compromises national security.
Bringing in the academic lens, Professor Okey Okechukwu challenged what he termed “seminar bubble thinking,” urging stakeholders to move beyond theory and embrace grassroots-driven peacebuilding rooted in real community dynamics.
Security practitioners also weighed in with urgency. Major General E.G. Ode (Rtd) called for a strategic reset—one that embeds cultural awareness and accountability into frontline operations. In his view, security responses must evolve to reflect the complex human terrain they operate within.
On the media front, Brigadier General Sani Kukasheka Usman (Rtd) delivered a pointed reminder: focus on criminal actions, not ethnic identities. He cautioned against subtle “dog-whistle” narratives that can inflame tensions and distort public perception.
Perhaps most compelling was the voice from the ground. Community leader George Iyua’a underscored the human cost of careless language, insisting that security classifications must remain behavior-based to protect innocent citizens and rebuild trust between communities and the state.
With over 70 participants joining virtually at peak engagement, the dialogue closed with a shared understanding—precision in language is not optional; it is essential for peace and effective security operations.
The conversation, however, is far from over.
Organizers confirmed that outcomes from the dialogue will feed into a major in-person conference scheduled for April 1–2, 2026, in Abuja. There, stakeholders are expected to develop a practical toolkit and policy framework aimed at eliminating harmful labeling in security, legal, and media spaces.
If successful, these tools could redefine how Nigeria—and indeed West Africa—talks about conflict, shifting the focus from identity to behavior, from division to understanding.
For BSIL and WISER, the message is clear: changing the narrative may be the first step toward changing the reality.
