Follow Us on Google
By Konyere Adiele-Uzoma
The concept of peace means different things to different people. Whilst peace may come in different forms to different people, there is a need to interrogate what it means to every citizen and the nation at large. In the bid to explore the different perspectives of peace and what it represents for our nation, let me begin with a simple definition of peace: “It’s a state of harmony, tranquility, and calmness. It refers to a situation or circumstance where individuals, groups, or nations coexist in mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation — free from hostility, fear, or discord.”
A School of Thought has it as merely the absence of conflict or violence, which is in contrast with another one that challenges the perspective of peace existing in a society where structural inequalities, social injustices, and political oppression are not addressed. This kind of peace could be described as fragile state of calm. It conceals deep-seated tensions and unresolved grievances. In other words, it’s referred to as negative peace.
In African continent, there are several examples of negative peace but in this instance, we shall use Nigeria as a case study because of her many wounds, scars and countless conflicts which haven’t healed or been addressed. The recurring nature of conflicts in Nigeria can be traced to the underlying issues—poverty, discrimination, marginalization, inequality, injustice, corruption, political and economic deprivation.
For centuries, negative peace has literally sat down pretty well in Nigeria. Sustained by the misguided belief that ceasefires, treaties, or temporary truces are sufficient to restore peace, it has refused to address foundational causes. Most scholars of peace are united with one voice that real peace deal is positive peace, which refers to the presence of conditions that foster harmony, justice, sustainable development and well-being within a society. This means that peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but the existence of systems, attitudes, and structures that promote fairness, inclusion, and resilience.
It also encompasses good governance, equitable distribution of resources, respect for human rights, and strong social cohesion. A society that enjoys positive peace must make sure that there are accessible education, healthcare systems, transparent and accountable leadership, equal opportunities for economic advancement and trust among its people.
Positive peace exists at various levels. It could be on personal or social levels, and manifests through healthy relationships and mutual respect among individuals and communities, devoid of hate speeches and name calling. At the national level, it is reflected in the absence of civil unrest or internal conflict, and supported by justice and social stability. While global peace represents harmony among nations, it is characterized by cooperation and the absence of international wars or hostilities.
Nigeria, alongside other countries of the world holds similar views about peace but not the symmetrical way. Its concept of peace is primarily rooted in conflict management rather than conflict resolution. This approach contrasts with what is common in many Western societies where peace is steeped in addressing and resolving the underlying causes of conflict. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that while the Western world practises the mechanism of conflict resolution, Nigeria tends to practise conflict management.
The seemingly preferred response to conflict in Nigeria is often a “fire brigade” approach — the rapid deployment of armed forces to quell unrest. While this method may restore order in the short-term, it seldom tackles the root causes of the conflict once hostilities subside. This approach is, quite frankly, more deprecative than appreciative, as it prioritizes temporary calm over sustainable peace. Though order may be restored, genuine peace remains elusive, leaving behind a fragile environment—like a keg of gunpowder waiting to explode.
Interestingly, there are as countless ideologies as there are countless ethnicities. Nigeria is a nation that consists of 3 major tribes and 371 ethnic groups. Whilst there is African adage that positively brags about the potency of “strength in numbers,” the fact remains that this same factor of “numbers” has become the potent catalyst that has triggered the most violent and vicious of conflicts in Nigeria.
There had been myriads of conflicts notably, ethnic conflicts between the Hausa-Fulani, the Igbo and Yoruba, recurrent religious clashes between Muslims and Christians in Plateau and Kaduna states, Niger Delta conflicts on account of resource control and environmental degradation and farmer-herder conflicts based on forceful acquisition of land. The Fulani nomadic herders had also posed a viable threat to farmers particularly in the Middle Belt, leading to bloody unrest in those regions. We equally have political and electoral violence occasioned by tensions arising from elections and political power struggles, insurgency and terrorism featuring Boko Haram in the North-East region.
Nigeria’s perspective of peace and conflict resolution takes to consideration a legendary love story that tells the tale of the unity that existed in the plain lands of a location before it became a country. Legend has it that the plains were most rich with love and most poor with conflict before it was invaded and later became amalgamated in 1914, by an ever expanding empire of Great Britain.
Undoubtedly, there has never been a time when conflict was absent from the area now known as Nigeria. It has always been an integral part of human existence including those who have inhabited this region. It is, however, important to note that the nature and scale of conflicts in the pre-colonial era differed significantly from those in post-colonial era.
Although there are no traces of when conflicts began in the precolonial period because most precolonial conflicts occurred long before the advent of records and documentation, much of what we know about them has been transmitted through oral tradition. The earliest accounts of organized conflict were recorded by Arab historians during the course of Trans-Saharan trade in the 6th century.
Through their writings, we can reconstruct a credible timeline of the Kanem-Bornu Empire wars, involving neighbouring tribes around the Lake Chad Basin. These conflicts were primarily driven by the need to define territorial boundaries and control vital trade routes.
By the early 19th century between 1804 and 1808, another significant conflict erupted — the Fulani Jihad — which pitted the Fulani against the Hausa city-states of the North. Although the banners of the time declared the war to be “for religious reasons,” historians are unanimous that the conflict was, to a large extent, driven by underlying struggles for ethnic dominance and political control.
The Yoruba Civil Wars of1817–1893 were a series of protracted conflicts among the Yoruba city-states of Oyo, Ibadan, Ijebu, and Egba, and largely triggered by the collapse of the Oyo Empire. As with many other wars of the era, these conflicts stemmed from disputes over trade routes, access to resources, succession struggles, and competition for political supremacy.
Interestingly, the causes of conflict in pre-colonial times were markedly different from those in the post-colonial era. The case of the trans-Saharan trade illustrates this contrast. The phrase “illuminating but dark days” captures the dual nature of the period — illuminating for the wealth and connections it brought, yet dark for the human suffering it caused.
While the trade brought prosperity through the exchange of goods, much of its wealth was extracted through the sale of human beings. For centuries, communities engaged in raids and wars to capture slaves for trade. Powerful West and Central African states, such as the Oyo Empire and the Sokoto Caliphate, gained prominence — and infamy — by clashing with neighboring societies over control of the slave trade, thus igniting the slave trade conflicts that marked the era.
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, competition for control of trade routes, markets, and resources led to numerous economic conflicts among communities. In pre-colonial Nigeria, however, society was organized into kingdoms and city-states, and a kingdom was not considered powerful unless it exerted dominance over others. The Yoruba Kingdoms, the Hausa city-states, the Benin Empire, and the Igbo communities all engaged in various forms of rivalry and warfare, often to assert political and territorial supremacy. Disputes over succession, leadership, and authority also fueled inter-ethnic and inter-territorial conflicts.
The 1914 amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria by the British colonial administration created more conflicts than at any other time in the region’s history. Suffice it to say that the causes of conflict in modern Nigeria are deeply rooted in the colonial legacy of division. The arbitrary borders drawn by the British failed to consider the ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity of the area—forcing together groups with different systems, values, and identifies.
In the quest for effortless control, the British adopted Divide-and-Rule policies, deliberately fostering divisions among ethnic groups. These policies encouraged rivalry and rewarded groups that undermined others, creating long-lasting mistrust and fragmentation. The colonialists also promoted uneven development, concentrating infrastructure, education, and economic opportunities in certain regions while leaving others underdeveloped. This is captured in the book: “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” written in 1972 by Walter Rodney. These imbalances bred resentment and became one of the most potent catalysts for post-colonial tensions over national resources.
The unequal access to Western education during colonial rule also widened the gap between regions and ethnic groups, leading to disparities in literacy, opportunities, and political participation. Over time, these structural inequalities entrenched competition for power and resources—particularly among Nigeria’s three major ethnic groups: the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo—thus sustaining cycles of tension and conflict that persist today.
Ethnicity is generally regarded as the most basic and politically salient identity in Nigeria, a claim supported by the fact that Nigerians are more inclined to define themselves in terms of their ethnic affiliations than any other form of identity. A survey conducted by Lewis and Bratton in 2000 entitled: “Attitude to Democracy and Market in Nigeria,” revealed that 48.2% of Nigerians identified primarily with their ethnic group, whereas only 21% chose to identify themselves through religion. The discovery underscores the crucial point that Nigerians tend to cluster more readily around the cultural solidarities of kinship and ethnicity. The Nigerian civil war of 1967-1970, also known as the Biafran war, was equally deep rooted in ethnic and political tensions, economic disparities and post-independence power struggles.
The discovery of oil in Oloibiri, in present-day Bayelsa State, also intensified tensions between the federal government and local communities. By the early 1990s, conflicts in the Niger Delta had escalated dramatically due to the marginalization of host communities, environmental degradation, and the lack of resource control in oil-producing regions. Another notable instance of ethnic conflict was the Zangon Kataf crisis of 1992, where the Hausa-Fulani and the Atyap of Southern Kaduna engaged in violent clashes over land ownership and political control in Kaduna State.
These conflicts have led to the deaths of hundreds of people and the destruction of properties across the country. In recent times, notable examples include the recurring clashes between Fulani herders and farming communities such as the Tiv, Berom, and Igbo over land and water resources. Thousands of lives and livelihoods have also been lost in these confrontations.
Religious differences have also persisted from the past two centuries into the present one. The Jos Crisis (2001–2010), involving the Hausa-Fulani Muslims and the Berom, Afizere, and Anaguta Christians, exemplifies how religious and ethnic tensions can escalate into full-blown conflicts that claim thousands of lives and displace many more in repeated cycles of violence.
The Maitatsine Riots of the 1980s remain a well-documented case of violent clashes between ethnic and religious groups in Northern Nigeria. The Boko Haram Insurgency, which began in 2009 in the North-East, has been an ongoing conflict between the insurgent group, the Federal Government, and local communities. Boko Haram has allegedly been responsible for widespread killings, destruction, mass displacement, and abductions — the most infamous being the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014. This is in addition to the EndSARS protests of 2020, which marked another defining moment in Nigeria’s conflict landscape. For the first time in over a century of Nigerian history, citizens from across the country’s 371 ethnic groups united to protest against police brutality, social injustice, and worsening economic conditions.
The protest also exposed deep-seated ethnic divisions and inequalities within the nation. What began as a unifying movement across diverse ethnicities eventually degenerated in some areas into ethnic profiling and clashes. Nigeria employs several mechanisms to address and manage conflicts, involving the efforts of government institutions, civil society, and international organizations.
The Constitution provides a legal framework for resolving disputes through the rule of law and the protection of citizens’ rights. We also have other notable mechanisms including constitutional reforms, the Federal Character Principle, judicial systems, and peace-building initiatives such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which investigates human rights violations and mediates conflicts. The electoral tribunals have also been instrumental in resolving political disputes, while peace accords have been used to foster reconciliation among political and ethnic groups.
In more volatile regions, the government has deployed military interventions and Civil Defence Corps, alongside regional collaborations such as the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF), to combat insurgency and cross-border conflicts. Mediation and dialogue have also been key tools in promoting peaceful coexistence, especially during electoral periods. The National Peace Committee (NPC) stands as a notable example of Nigeria’s mechanism of conflict resolution, alongside the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of 2000 headed by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, which sought to address historical grievances. Other significant peace-building initiatives include the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP)—also known as the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme—established in 2009 for the disarmament, rehabilitation, and reintegration of ex-militants in the Niger Delta.
Traditional and religious institutions have equally served as mediators in the pursuit of peace. The Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC), comprising Christian and Muslim leaders, has played a key role in fostering interfaith dialogue and promoting national cohesion. In addition, both government and local actors have collaborated with international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) to strengthen peace efforts.
More recently, the Presidential Committee on Herdsmen-Farmer Clashes was inaugurated to tackle the insurgency and resource-based conflicts, particularly in agrarian communities. Institutions such as the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) were created to address the developmental grievances of the oil-producing region. Youth empowerment initiatives have also been launched to curb unemployment and poverty—recognized as major root causes of conflict.
Efforts have been made to reintegrate displaced persons, especially those affected by the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East.
Federal and state institutions have further supported peace-building through agencies like the National Orientation Agency (NOA), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as CLEEN Foundation and the West Africa Network for Peace-building (WANEP), which work to promote grassroots dialogue and community-level conflict resolution. Civil society groups, including the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CEPACS), engage in advocacy, public awareness, and community-based interventions to address systemic issues like corruption, inequality, and poor governance.
Military strategies, along with deradicalization and reintegration programmes, have been deployed to combat insurgency. Policies such as the establishment of grazing reserves and ranching systems aim to mitigate land and resource disputes. Yet Nigeria continues to face significant challenges in realizing sustainable conflict resolution. These include corruption, economic inequality, weak institutions, poor governance, and entrenched ethnic and religious biases. On the whole, Nigeria’s dynamic and complex conflict landscape has persisted despite numerous peace-building mechanisms and interventions.
The potential solutions and recommendations to achieve conflict resolution, as opposed to mere conflict management, despite the pervasive challenges of hate speech, misinformation, and stereotypical narratives that have deepened our mistrust for one another, must be rooted in addressing the historical causes of conflicts from both the pre- and post-colonial eras of Nigeria. There must be deliberate and sustained efforts by the government to promote the equitable distribution of national resources across all regions, alongside a revision of the revenue-sharing formula to reflect fairness, inclusiveness, and justice. Only then can Nigeria begin to move toward true and positive peace.
The call to action is required from inter-ethnic and community-based dialogues, which should be strengthened by empowering grassroots organizations to mediate and resolve local disputes. The government should invest in economic development programs targeting marginalized communities to alleviate poverty and inequality by creating employment opportunities for youth, as well as establishing entrepreneurship and vocational training programs in order to reduce frustration and restiveness. Peace and conflict resolution education should be incorporated into school curricula to instill tolerance and understanding from an early age. Media responsibility must be ensured through proper regulation, training, and monitoring of outlets to avoid inflammatory reporting and to promote unity and reconciliation.
In the justice sector, there should be a shift toward restorative justice, focusing on repairing relationships, rehabilitating offenders, and fostering reconciliation rather than relying solely on punitive measures. Security agencies must be adequately trained and equipped to manage conflicts professionally, impartially, and humanely. Adopting community-based policing can also help to effectively address local security concerns. The government should as a matter of necessity adopt conflict mapping and data-driven approaches by developing a comprehensive database to understand conflict patterns, identify root causes, and anticipate potential flashpoints. Leveraging technology to monitor and predict conflict hotspots can facilitate timely and proactive interventions. Collaboration with international organizations such as the United Nations can provide valuable support in mediation, peace-building, and capacity development. Conflict resolution must go hand in hand, like a new bride in the comforting embrace of her groom.
