War against Terrorism: Why Nigeria Must Win the Battle for the Mind

Iyobosa Uwugiaren argues that terrorist groups thrive on visibility, publicity, and fear. Every time society exaggerates their power beyond reality, their psychological influence expands, communities become more intimidated, victims become more isolated, citizens lose faith in institutions, and security personnel become demoralised.

In the widely circulated footage linked to the recent abduction of school children in Oyo State, frightened children appeared exhausted, traumatised, and psychologically broken. Their faces reflected confusion and fear. Across the country, parents watched with horror. Social media exploded with outrage. State and federal government authorities panicked.

The emotional impact of the incident travelled faster than the facts themselves. The disturbing and terrifying video was painful to watch.

However, beyond the immediate tragedy lies a deeper and more dangerous reality: terrorism and banditry in Nigeria are no longer only about physical violence. It is increasingly about psychological warfare.

The objective of many violent groups today extends beyond kidnapping, killings, or ransom collection. They seek to dominate public imagination through fear, humiliation, propaganda, and spectacle. Every viral video, frightening image, exaggerated rumour, and panic-driven conversation strengthens their psychological influence.

Insecurity, in this context, becomes not just a security crisis but also a battle for the national psyche.

That is why citizens must resist allowing bandits, terrorists, and violent criminal networks to control the narrative.

The kidnapping in Oyo State shocked many people partly because the South-West has historically not experienced school abductions on the scale seen in parts of the North-West and North-East. Armed men reportedly invaded schools in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State and abducted dozens of pupils and teachers, including very young children. Sadly, one of the teachers was killed.

The incident revived painful memories of previous mass abductions that have scarred the country’s modern history — from the infamous Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping to the kidnappings in Kankara, Afaka, Kuriga, Southern Kaduna, and other parts of northern Nigeria. In each of these cases, the criminals understood something crucial: schools are symbolic targets. Children represent innocence, the future, and social stability. Attacking them generates maximum emotional reaction. The psychological effect is often greater than the operational scale of the attack itself.

This is how terror functions globally. Violent groups understand media psychology. A single attack, if amplified repeatedly through videos, shouting headlines, manipulated images, and social media panic, can create the impression that the entire nation is collapsing even when security agencies retain operational control in many areas.

Fear becomes their greatest weapon.

The danger, however, is that Nigerians sometimes unknowingly assist in spreading this fear. Social media has transformed insecurity into a real-time emotional spectacle. Videos circulate before verification. Old footage is reposted as fresh attacks. Rumours spread rapidly.

In the case of the Oyo kidnapping, fact-checking organisations later revealed that one widely circulated torture video linked to the abducted students was actually old and unrelated footage.

But by the time corrections emerged, the panic had already spread. This is precisely how psychological warfare succeeds. Bandits and terrorists do not necessarily need to physically occupy major cities to weaken a country. They only need citizens to believe nowhere is safe.

Once fear dominates public consciousness — as it is gradually the case in the country today — economic activities slow down, schools close, investors retreat, ethnic suspicions increase, and confidence in state institutions begins to collapse. That is the strategic goal of terror.

None of this means insecurity should be downplayed. Nigeria’s security crisis is real, painful, and deadly. Thousands of citizens have been killed or displaced across different states. Rural communities have been devastated. Farmers have abandoned farmlands. Families live under constant anxiety. School children have become vulnerable targets in some states. These are realities that demand urgent national attention.

However, acknowledging the severity of insecurity is different from surrendering mentally to criminal propaganda. A nation can fight insecurity aggressively without amplifying hopelessness.

Unfortunately, parts of the country’s information ecosystem sometimes unintentionally glorify violent actors. Certain criminal leaders become household names. Their threats dominate headlines. Graphic videos receive endless circulation. Rumours are repeated without verification. In some instances, public discourse begins to portray criminals as more powerful than the state itself. That is dangerous.

Criminal organisations thrive on visibility and fear. Every time society exaggerates their power beyond reality, their psychological influence expands. Communities become more intimidated. Victims become more isolated. Citizens lose faith in institutions. Security personnel become demoralised.

This is why responsible communication is now a national security issue. The media has an especially delicate responsibility. Journalism must continue exposing failures, demanding accountability, and reporting insecurity truthfully. Democratic societies depend on a free press. But responsible journalism also requires avoiding sensationalism that unintentionally strengthens the propaganda objectives of terrorist groups.

This concern has also been echoed by Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, who has repeatedly urged journalists to exercise patriotism, professionalism, and responsibility in reporting security challenges. He has cautioned against the dissemination of terrorist and bandit propaganda, warning that sensational or unverified reports can inadvertently amplify the influence of criminal groups, undermine public confidence, and demoralise troops on the frontlines. According to him, while the media must continue to hold government accountable and keep citizens informed, it should avoid becoming an unwitting platform for the psychological objectives of terrorists and bandits.

There is a major difference between informing the public and amplifying terror. Graphic content, emotional manipulation, and unverified casualty figures may attract attention online, but they can also deepen collective trauma. Repeatedly circulating disturbing footage of victims, especially children, may unintentionally achieve the criminals’ goal of spreading fear beyond the immediate attack zone.

Media organisations therefore need stronger ethical frameworks for reporting insecurity in the digital age. At the same time, the government must improve its own communication credibility.

One major reason rumours dominate public discourse is that official communication is often slow, inconsistent, or dismissive. Citizens naturally turn to unofficial sources when they do not trust government narratives. Strategic communication is therefore not optional; it is essential.

Security agencies must provide timely, transparent, and credible updates during security crises. Silence creates information vacuums quickly filled by misinformation. Contradictory statements worsen distrust. But honest communication, even during difficult situations, helps preserve public confidence.

Importantly, citizens must also recognise the efforts being made by security agencies across various theatres of operation. The military, police, intelligence agencies, and local security volunteers continue to operate under extremely difficult conditions. Many officers have lost their lives fighting insurgents, terrorists, kidnappers, and armed gangs.

Despite operational challenges, security forces have recorded notable successes in recent years. Several criminal camps have been dismantled. Kidnapped victims have been rescued. High-profile bandit commanders have been neutralised. Some previously dangerous highways and communities have witnessed improved security due to sustained military operations. These efforts should not be ignored simply because insecurity still exists.

A dangerous national mindset emerges when citizens begin believing the state is entirely helpless. Such perceptions can weaken morale among both civilians and security personnel. Nations confronting prolonged security crises require not only weapons and intelligence but also psychological resilience.

Nigeria’s insecurity problem is deeply connected to broader governance failures. Banditry thrives where poverty, unemployment, weak state presence, poor infrastructure, corruption, and social exclusion persist. Rural neglect has created environments where criminal groups recruit vulnerable youths easily. This is the case in the northern part of the country today. Illegal mining, arms trafficking, porous borders, and communal conflicts have further complicated the security landscape.

This means military action alone cannot permanently solve the problem. Long-term stability requires comprehensive reforms: rural development, quality education, youth employment, intelligence coordination, border control, police reform, and stronger local governance systems. Communities must also become active partners in security through intelligence sharing and cooperation with lawful authorities.

Another troubling dimension is the politicisation of insecurity. Political actors sometimes weaponise security crises for partisan advantage. While criticism of government performance is legitimate in a democracy, exaggerated narratives designed purely to score political points can worsen national instability. Security challenges should never become tools for reckless political propaganda. The consequences affect everyone regardless of ethnic, religious, or political affiliation. Insecurity undermines national development, weakens investor confidence, damages education, and deepens humanitarian crises.

Perhaps most importantly, Nigeria must resist normalising fear. One of the greatest victories terrorist groups can achieve is convincing citizens that insecurity is permanent, unstoppable, and inevitable. Once hopelessness becomes embedded in public consciousness, national cohesion begins to weaken dangerously.

History shows that societies survive security crises not only because of military strength but because citizens refuse psychological surrender. Nigeria itself has survived enormous challenges before: civil war, military dictatorship, economic crises, insurgencies, and communal conflicts.

Despite these struggles, the country continues to demonstrate resilience, entrepreneurial energy, and social endurance.

The current wave of insecurity, though serious, is not beyond resolution.

But defeating it requires balance. Government must avoid complacency while citizens avoid panic. Security agencies must intensify operations while improving professionalism and accountability.

The media must inform without glorifying criminals. Citizens must remain vigilant without spreading misinformation. Political leaders must place national stability above partisan advantage.

Above all, citizens must understand that the battle against banditry is both physical and psychological. The guns may operate in forests and remote communities, but fear operates in the human mind. If terrorists succeed in controlling public imagination through terror and propaganda, they gain influence far beyond their actual operational capacity. But if Nigeria strengthens institutions, improves governance, supports security forces, promotes responsible communication, and refuses to surrender mentally to fear, then the psychological power of bandits can be broken gradually.

The disturbing images from Oyo should awaken national urgency, not national despair.

Nigeria must confront insecurity with courage, realism, intelligence, and resilience — without allowing criminals to define the  country’s identity or future. That may ultimately become one of the most important battles the nation must win.