Arewa Media Summit: The Facts Behind the Narratives
By Mohammed Dahiru Lawal
Sometimes, the most revealing moments at public events are the spontaneous ones.
That happened during our panel session on “Ethics and Responsibility of Media/Influencers in the Age of Information Warfare” at the recent Northern Summit when fellow panellist, Barrister Fatima Zahra Umar, glanced across the panel and remarked almost instinctively, “So all of us on this panel are from the North-East?”
Her observation caught my attention. First, I wondered how certain she was that I, in particular, belonged to the North-East.
Then I looked around the panel. Except for our exceptionally competent moderator, Kabiru Danladi Lawanti—who also happens to be my in-law and was once my wife’s lecturer at Ahmadu Bello University—Barrister Fatima was largely correct.
Comrade Alhassan Yahaya, President of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), is from Gombe State. Barrister Tom Garba, a respected online publisher, hails from Adamawa State. As for me, my own story reflects Nigeria’s diversity.
I trace my roots to Biu in Borno State. I spent my formative years in Ajaokuta, Kogi State, where my father worked as an engineer at the Ajaokuta Steel Company, one of Nigeria’s most ambitious industrial projects. Yet I proudly identify as Bakano. Kano gave me far more than a place to live. It gave me an education, professional opportunities, lifelong friendships, invaluable networks, and the platform upon which my career continues to grow.
But this article is not about my biography.
Rather, it is about what Barrister Fatima’s remark represented.
Her comment came immediately before Barrister Tom Garba’s insightful presentation on Boko Haram, insecurity in the North-East, and the role of peace journalism in de-escalating conflicts while holding governments accountable. The composition of the panel was hardly accidental. It reflected the organisers’ deliberate decision to include professionals with first-hand knowledge and lived experience of the region’s security realities.
That is why I have found recent claims that insecurity in Northern Nigeria was ignored during the Summit both surprising and unfair. Such assertions simply do not reflect what transpired.
Security challenges—particularly those confronting Northern Nigeria—featured prominently in discussions, not only during our panel but across several sessions. Participants examined terrorism, banditry, information warfare, media ethics, strategic communication, and the role of responsible journalism in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
Read Also:
To suggest otherwise is, at best, a misunderstanding of the proceedings and, at worst, an unfair attempt to diminish the efforts of the organisers and contributors.
Equally disappointing has been the attempt by some commentators to dismiss the Summit as merely a gathering of “data boys”—a phrase that says more about those deploying it than about those who attended.
The delegates were invited on the strength of their professional competence, not political patronage. They included journalists, academics, policy experts, security practitioners, development professionals, and communication specialists, many of whom have spent decades researching, reporting, and engaging with the very issues discussed at the Summit.
I count myself fortunate to belong to a family that has always valued professionalism. My late father, a UK-trained builder and Russian-trained refractory engineer, dedicated his productive years to the Ajaokuta Steel Company, believing that national development is built through expertise, discipline, and service. That same belief continues to shape my understanding of public engagement.
Of course, like any gathering that brings together people from different political and professional backgrounds, the Summit was not devoid of political interests. Nor should it have been. Political leaders, elected officials, and policymakers have every right to articulate their perspectives. Equally important, professionals and subject-matter experts must retain the freedom to interrogate policies, offer constructive criticism, and speak truth to power.
That healthy interaction is precisely what meaningful dialogue should encourage.
No inaugural event is perfect, and this Summit was no exception.
There is certainly room for improvement. Future editions would benefit from even broader stakeholder engagement, greater regional representation, more robust debates, and wider consultations capable of producing practical policy recommendations for addressing Northern Nigeria’s multifaceted challenges.
But that is precisely the point. This was the first edition. Every enduring institution begins somewhere. Rather than dismissing an initiative at birth because it falls short of perfection, we should encourage its evolution, offer constructive criticism, and support efforts to make subsequent editions more inclusive and impactful.
Northern Nigeria faces far too many complex challenges for us to expend our energies questioning the motives of those willing to create platforms for dialogue.
The real question should not be whether the first Summit was flawless.
It should be whether it opened a space for conversations that matter. Having participated in those conversations, I can confidently say that it did. The task now is not to discredit the effort but to build upon it.
That is how meaningful institutions—and meaningful solutions—are ultimately forged.
Mohammed Dahiru Lawal is Head Factcheck PRNigeria
