By Tunde Akanni
In a country of dazzling diversity like Nigeria, conflicts are almost inevitable. Managing them requires not only tact and empathy but also deliberate, context-sensitive communication as exemplified by grassroots communication. Thankfully, there is a unique organisation endowed with thought leaders committed to advancing both scholarship and practical engagement in this area. One such beacon is the Society for Peace Studies and Practice (SPSP), founded by the doyen of conflict studies in Africa, Professor Isaac Olawale Albert, of the University of Ibadan.
For decades, Prof. Albert has stood at the intersection of scholarship and praxis, pushing for peacebuilding frameworks that are both culturally rooted and globally informed. The SPSP, under his visionary influence, has become an important platform for scholars, practitioners, and institutions to interrogate and improve the architecture of peace in Nigeria and beyond. Of particular note is the Society’s commitment to regular training programmes accompanying the induction of new members, ensuring that fresh entrants into the fold are not merely enrolled but equipped with relevant skills and knowledge to address conflict in various contexts. This timeous initiative is deserving of commendation, not just for its consistency, but also for its adaptability to the changing dynamics of communication in a conflict-prone society.
As a development communication expert, I dare assert that grassroots communication of conflict goes beyond mere information dissemination as Ive had to repeatedly argue during SPSP sessions and even in some other contexts. It involves listening, mediation, and translation—translation not just of language but of intentions, cultural norms, and social signals.
In Nigeria, with its more than 250 ethnic groups, this work demands not just linguistic competence but deep cultural intelligence. Traditional public communication practices have long provided such grounding. Reckoning properly with the fundamentality of grassroots communication, like it did for a training programme April 10-11 this year ensured that a similar schedule August 30 and 31 featured a practice oriented engagement by with the subject. The segment for the two training programmes were handled by yours sincerely. It availed me the opportunity to, for the benefit of the trainees, romance with my practice and academic leanings to register didactic impact.
Across Nigeria’s varied cultures, the methods of public communication are as diverse as the people themselves. In Yoruba communities, for instance, the town crier—equipped with a gong and a well-projected voice—remains an emblem of authoritative information. Among the Igbo, age-grades and town unions serve as trusted conveyors of messages, especially those aimed at resolving disputes. In Hausa-Fulani areas, the palace court system, with its reliance on emirate councils and traditional title holders, provides both structure and legitimacy for mediating community issues.
These indigenous practices are more than quaint relics; they are communication infrastructures with deep social trust. Their strength lies in their ability to convey messages with moral weight and communal acceptance—qualities that modern channels, however efficient, sometimes lack. Effective conflict communication must therefore find ways to integrate these traditional practices with modern media, especially in culturally sensitive environments. However, this should be craftily integrated with facilities of this digitech age to excite all. This of course calls for caution with regards to the relevant laws. Of particular importance, as I mentioned to the participants, was the Cybercrime Prohibitions Act of 2015 as Amended
With the proliferation and the ubiquity of social media who can do any public communication without the social media? Meanwhile, a statement framed in direct, blunt terms may be interpreted as honesty in one cultural setting but seen as disrespect in another. Similarly, symbols, colours, or idioms that seem innocuous to one group can carry volatile connotations to another. This calls for conflict communicators to be diversity-literate—able to decode meanings across cultural boundaries and to craft messages that bridge, rather than widen, divides. Yet, social media makes possible unimaginable virality!
It is not for nothing that the proponents of the concept of multi-track diplomacy ceded the central track of all the nine tracks to the twin element of media and communication. Multi-Track Diplomacy, a framework that recognises that peacebuilding is not the sole preserve of governments or official envoys. Instead, it occurs along multiple tracks, often simultaneously:
1. Official diplomacy (Track One) — involving formal government negotiations.
2. Non-governmental and professional diplomacy (Track Two) — driven by NGOs, academics, and professionals.
3. Business diplomacy — where corporate actors engage in peace initiatives.
4. Private citizen diplomacy — involving individuals, families, and grassroots groups.
5. Media and communication diplomacy — the track that undergirds all others by shaping narratives, framing issues, and enabling dialogue.
Media and communication are not peripheral here; they are central. Without clear, credible, and culturally attuned communication, the efforts of the other tracks can collapse under the weight of misunderstanding, suspicion, or misinformation. Conversely, when media and communication are effectively harnessed, they can create the enabling environment for resolution and reconciliation.
The Post-Truth Challenge in the Digital Era
The last decade has ushered in another layer of complexity: the age of post-truth, where objective facts are often less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. This shift has been accelerated by digital technologies, including the recent rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI).
While AI offers opportunities for faster information processing, real-time translation, and predictive conflict mapping, it also raises the stakes for misinformation, deepfakes, and propaganda. A manipulated video, convincingly produced with AI tools, can inflame communities before fact-checkers can respond.
Grassroots communicators of conflict must therefore approach digital tools with both optimism and caution. They must be trained to verify sources, recognise manipulated content, and understand the dynamics of virality in social media. In Nigeria, this means not just awareness of risks, but also knowledge of relevant laws as earlier stated.
As I mentioned previously, if there is one government agency that should be at the forefront of conflict communication at the grassroots, it is the National Orientation Agency (NOA). With its mandate to promote national unity, patriotism, and the values of democracy, NOA is uniquely positioned to serve as a bridge between national peace policies and community realities.
However, for NOA to be effective in this role, it must go beyond periodic campaigns and slogans. Staff must be continuously trained in the nuances of conflict communication, including diversity management, traditional media integration, digital literacy, and legal compliance. The periodic training programmes organised by the SPSP provide an excellent platform for such capacity building. NOA’s active participation in these sessions should not be a symbolic gesture but a strategic investment in national stability.
In the end, communication is not just an adjunct to conflict resolution—it is its lifeblood. Words can heal or harm; messages can unite or divide. For Nigeria, where diversity is both a gift and a challenge, conflict communication must be rooted in cultural intelligence, guided by scholarly insight, and executed with legal and ethical responsibility.
The Society for Peace Studies and Practice has provided a commendable model by institutionalising the training of its members and inductees. It is now up to other stakeholders—government agencies like NOA, community leaders, media professionals, and even private citizens—to take these lessons to the grassroots, where conflicts begin and, with skill and sincerity, can also end.
In this age of post-truth, with AI blurring the line between the real and the fabricated, the stakes could not be higher. We must therefore embrace both old wisdom and new tools, remembering always that in the delicate art of peacebuilding, how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate.
Tunde Akanni is a Professor of Journalism and Development Communiation at LASU, Nigeria.
