Digital Sovereignty: How Crisis Communication Shapes National Security
By Omoniyi P. Ibietan
“In a republic, no one can exercise unaccountable power.” That conviction framed the essence of discussions at the National Symposium on Digital Innovations in Crisis Communication held on 24 November 2025 at the National Defence College, Abuja. Convened by the Centre for Crisis Communication (CCC), the symposium gathered policymakers, security experts, media leaders, and digital governance professionals to confront a central question of our time: how do we defend the republic in an age where power increasingly resides in algorithms, platforms, and invisible data flows?
I was invited to speak on “Strengthening Institutional and Media Capacity for Digital Crisis Communication,” a theme that goes beyond communication strategy into the heart of sovereignty, accountability, and national security. At stake is not merely how information travels, but who controls it, who is answerable for its consequences, and how a republic asserts authority in a borderless digital ecosystem.
The keynote by Dr. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, Director General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), set the tone with clarity and urgency. On the panel with me were Musikilu Mojeed of Premium Times, Adaobi Nwankwo of the Nigeria Data Protection Commission, and Jibrin Baba Ndace of Voice of Nigeria—voices that brought depth to a conversation about technology, democracy, and security.
Several paradoxes shaped our reflections.
The first concerned surveillance and the information-industrial complex. Digital platforms harvest data, shape discourse, and influence behaviour at scale. Yet in a republic, neither corporations nor governments should wield unaccountable power. Laws that govern physical territories must also apply in digital spaces. No entity operating within Nigeria—individual, corporate, or governmental—should exist above Nigerian law. Online spaces cannot remain regulatory voids where data is mined indiscriminately and destabilising content circulates unchecked.
The second paradox involved free speech versus hate speech. We examined Nigeria’s decision to suspend Twitter (now X) and whether that action, though controversial, represented a legitimate assertion of sovereignty in the face of speech that had crossed into incitement and security risks. Freedom of expression is essential, but it is not synonymous with unrestrained licence. No democracy thrives where speech is weaponised against the state and citizens without accountability.
The third contradiction lay in truth versus falsity in the age of artificial intelligence. AI-generated content now blurs reality, undermines trust, and complicates crisis response. When falsehood spreads faster than verification, national security becomes fragile. Trust—once broken in the information space—is difficult to rebuild.
Read Also:
Political polarisation emerged as another destabilising force. Hyper-connectivity amplifies divisions, turning ordinary disagreements into existential conflicts. A republic must cultivate civic maturity that allows disagreement without dehumanisation along ethnic, religious, or regional fault lines.
We also reflected on the democracy–authoritarianism tension in platform governance. For years, African states had little influence over the user agreements of global tech companies. Nigeria’s insistence on accountability—compelling platforms like Twitter and Meta to comply with local laws, establish complaint mechanisms, and institute transparent account deactivation and reinstatement processes—was a necessary assertion of digital sovereignty. Today, these companies file compliance reports, pay taxes, and engage regulators—evidence that sovereign authority still matters.
Data from NITDA underscores why regulation is unavoidable. Millions of fraudulent or harmful accounts have been deactivated across platforms. Tens of millions of pieces of harmful content have been removed, with hundreds of thousands reinstated after review—demonstrating that regulation, when structured, balances security and rights.
This matters because terrorists, bandits, and criminal networks increasingly exploit digital platforms for recruitment, propaganda, and coordination. Technology itself is neutral; its weaponisation is not. Professional journalism and ethical communication remain critical antidotes to the poverty of truth and trust.
The symposium stressed that security is central to prosperity. Public officials must communicate clearly, promptly, and responsibly during crises to prevent speculation and distrust. Journalism, too, must evolve—strengthening verification skills, using digital forensic tools, and exercising ethical judgment to avoid reporting that jeopardises operations or public safety.
Data protection principles—minimisation, transparency, and impact assessment—were also emphasised. In a digital culture awash with information, citizens and institutions alike must understand their responsibilities in handling data.
A key recommendation was the development of locally designed crisis-reporting applications that integrate citizen input, AI monitoring, and institutional response. Digital innovation in crisis communication is no longer optional; it is a necessity.
Ultimately, the most enduring lesson from the symposium is the imperative of media and information literacy. Citizens must learn to interrogate what they consume, understand motives behind narratives, and resist manipulation. Civic education that embeds media literacy at all levels of schooling is now a democratic necessity.
The defence of the republic today is not fought only at physical borders. It unfolds in the information space—where truth, trust, and accountability determine whether democracy thrives or erodes. In that space, the principle remains clear: in a republic, no one—state or corporation—should exercise unaccountable power.
Omoniyi P. Ibietan
Secretary General, African Public Relations Association (APRA)
