The Sectarian Echo Chamber: How Disinformation Breeds Ethnic Divisions, Hate Speech In Nigeria

The history of hate speech in Nigeria is deeply intertwined with the country’s colonial past, ethnic diversity, religious differences, and political struggles. After independence, Nigeria’s political landscape was characterised by ethnic tensions, particularly among the three major ethnic groups: Hausa-Fulani (North), Yoruba (West), and Igbo (East). Hate speech was a major factor in the events leading up to the Nigerian Civil War (Biafra War). The 1966 military coups saw the assassination of key political figures, leading to anti-Igbo pogroms in the North.

Anti-Igbo hate speech was widespread in Northern Nigeria, with slogans and media narratives aimed at divisions. Biafran leaders, led by Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu also used inflammatory language against the Nigerian government, further escalating tensions. The thirty-month civil war was marked by propaganda, including derogatory terms used by both sides to justify violence.

Over the years, hate speech has been weaponised on Nigeria digital spaces, across online platforms like Facebook, X and encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp. Ethnic-fueled hate speech is encouraged as parents also communicate ethnic biases to their children. 

Allegations of appointments based on ethnic favouritism in government, like the case of ex-president Muhammadu Buhari and current President, Bola Tinubu both accused of giving key appointments to individuals from their regions, continue to drive hate speech. Insurgency (e.g., Boko Haram) and banditry, farmers-herders clashes also fuels ethnic blame games, especially in cases where particular ethnic or religious groups are more affected by the consequences of the insecurity than the others. 

These dynamics often exacerbates tensions and deepens divisions in a country with over 250 ethnic groups, reinforcing stereotypes and historical grievances. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns use ethnic bias to manipulate public opinion. Unverified or misleading news spreads rapidly on social media, portraying one ethnic group as superior or another as dangerous or untrustworthy, fostering resentment and distrust among ethnic groups, making it harder to achieve peaceful coexistence.

On platforms like X(formerly Twitter), we have seen narratives of ethnic groups killing for ritual purposes; being politically cunning; unreliable and dirty.

These types of narrative have fueled ethnic and religious violence, like the Jos crisis, Kaduna riot, and the Mambilla plateau killing in 2017. Politicians, religious leaders, or social media influencers sometimes use inflammatory language that leads to violent clashes as seen in this video shared during the 2023 elections

Hate speech can contribute to electoral manipulation and voter suppression in several ways by fostering division, spreading misinformation, and intimidating certain groups of voters. It targets specific ethnic, religious, or political groups, making them feel unsafe participating in the electoral process. Threats, slurs, or violent rhetoric can discourage voters from going to polling stations, fearing harassment or violence. Democracy relies on unity in diversity, but hate speech fosters division, discrimination, and hostility among different groups and if not addressed, people would lose faith in democratic institutions, if this is persistent, believing that the system favours certain groups over others. Businesses of people from the other tribe can be badly affected as there might be calls to boycott them, especially if it had a hand in spreading hateful slurs, thereby leading to dwindling economic activities.

The Future Ahead

Social media companies play a crucial role in content moderation, particularly in addressing hate speech, by balancing freedom of expression with the need to create a safe and inclusive online environment. ​Meta's recent policy changes, particularly the termination of its third-party fact-checking program in favor of a community-based moderation system, raises significant concerns for curbing hate speech. Advocacy groups in Nigeria have expressed alarm over Meta's decision, emphasising that platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp are integral to the country's information ecosystem and can be weaponised without adequate fact-checking and content moderation.

Fact-checking organisations and media literacy campaigns play a crucial role in curtailing hate speech by promoting accurate information, critical thinking, and responsible media consumption. Knowing that hate speech often thrives on false narratives, stereotypes, and misleading claims, fact-checkers are crucial for analysing the intent and context of statements, not just their factual accuracy.

Similarly, civil society efforts and community engagement play a crucial role in limiting hate speech in Nigeria by fostering dialogue, promoting tolerance, and holding individuals and institutions accountable. Civil society organisations, CSOs can educate the public on the dangers of hate speech through workshops, social media, and community forums. 

Limiting the spread of hate speech requires promoting positive engagement, reporting harmful content, and fostering digital awareness.