One of the defining challenges of the digital age is balancing freedom of expression with public safety. Democracies have long recognised that there are circumstances in which the unrestricted dissemination of extremist propaganda can aid violence, spread fear, and undermine national security.
Nigeria should learn from that history.
At the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the British government imposed restrictions on the direct broadcast of the voices of leading members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and associated organisations. Most notably, the BBC and other broadcasters were prohibited from airing the voices of figures such as Gerry Adams, then president of Sinn FĆ©in, which was widely regarded as the political wing of the IRA. Television stations resorted to using actorsā voices to relay statements instead.
The restrictions were controversial and attracted criticism from civil liberties advocates. Yet the underlying principle was clear: the state should not allow terrorists to exploit mainstream media as a platform for intimidation, recruitment, propaganda, or psychological warfare.
Today, Western governments continue to grapple with similar issues on social media. Platforms such as Facebook, X, YouTube, and TikTok routinely remove terrorist content, restrict accounts linked to extremist organisations, and apply warning labels or community notes to misleading or harmful material. Content that glorifies terrorism or promotes violent extremism is often taken down within hours.
Nigeria, however, appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
In recent years, Nigerians have been confronted with deeply disturbing videos released by bandits, kidnappers, and terrorist groups. These videos frequently show captives being tortured, humiliated, or forced to plead for ransom payments. Some contain threats against communities and government officials. Others are used to announce demands, celebrate attacks, or spread fear among the population.
The perpetrators understand exactly what they are doing.
These videos are not merely evidence of criminal activity. They are carefully crafted instruments of psychological warfare. Their purpose is to terrify the public, demoralise security forces, amplify the reputation of criminal groups, and pressure families into paying ransoms. Every share, repost, and rebroadcast extends the reach of that campaign.
No civilised society should allow terrorists and kidnappers to operate their own media channels.
The Federal Government of Nigeria should therefore engage directly with major social media platforms and demand the immediate removal of content produced by terrorist and bandit organisations. Just as many countries cooperate with technology companies to combat extremist propaganda, Nigeria should insist that videos showing torture, executions, hostage demands, and terrorist messaging be taken down without delay.
This is not a call for censorship of legitimate journalism. News organisations must remain free to report on security challenges and hold governments accountable. However, there is a significant difference between reporting that a terrorist group released a video and providing that group with a platform to distribute its propaganda to millions of viewers.
Responsible reporting can inform the public without amplifying the terroristsā message.
Furthermore, regulators should work with technology companies to develop rapid-response mechanisms for identifying and removing such content. Law enforcement agencies should also improve their capacity to track the origin of these videos and prosecute those involved in their production and dissemination.
The stakes are high.
Every nation has a duty to protect its citizens not only from physical violence but also from organised campaigns of terror designed to spread fear and instability. Allowing kidnappers, bandits, and terrorists unrestricted access to digital platforms effectively gives them a broadcasting licence they neither deserve nor should possess.
Nigeria must not permit criminals to dominate the information space. The victims deserve dignity, the public deserves protection, and terrorists deserve no microphone.
This piece should fit well within your broader theme of governance, security, and the responsibilities of modern states in confronting violent non-state actors.
