







































AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

95                 Onyenweaku 

LANGUAGE OF ALTERCATION IN CONFLICT SITUATION: A CRITICAL 

STUDY OF SELECTED SPEECHES OF PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI 

AND MAZI NNAMDI KANU 

 

Okechukwu Onyenweaku 

Department of Languages, Akanu Ibiam 

Federal Polytechnic, Unwana, Ebonyi state, Nigeria 

Okechukwuonyenweaku @gmail.com 

 

Abstract 

Language use in conflict situation is essentially a skillful undertaking that calls for 

meticulousness and diplomacy among interlocutors so as to mitigate the impact of conflict on 

human relations. While a cautious and diplomatic use of language has the potential to douse 

conflict, language of altercation escalates it and truncates peaceful coexistence among diverse 

multi-ethnic conglomerates. To this end, this paper examines language of altercation in conflict 

situation and makes a critical discourse analysis of selected speeches of President Muhammadu 

Buhari and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The motivation for the study is the expediency of examining 

linguistic choices that often characterize utterancesof “powers that be” in the Nigerian socio-

political landscape, with a view to ascertaining their implication on the peaceful coexistence of 

Nigerians. Data for the study were textual, culled from Daily Newspapers, live interviews and 

broadcasts on television stations. Atextual analysis approach was adopted for the analysis. 

Findings revealed that the two principal actors, in many occasions, engaged in the use of 

language of altercation in advancing and explicating their views and perspectives on certain 

sensitive national discourse without taking cognizance of the effects of such utterances on 

national security, unity and cohesion. Consequently, the paper recommends, among others, that 

while occupants of exalted public offices should desist from making unwarranted and 

provocative utterances, the media professionals should not accept to publish writeups with 

explicit or implied language of altercation. The paper equally advocates that the Ministry of 

Information should organize public orientation to educate Nigerians on the need to ensure that 

their language use has a touch of civility and politeness. 

Keywords: Language, Altercation, Conflict, Communication, Conflict management 

 

Introduction 

Language is, indubitably, an essential medium of interpersonal communication available to 

man in which he expresses himself and attracts reciprocal actions from his fellow interlocutors 

within his sociolinguistic milieu. The role of language in human relationships is fundamentally 

expedient in that it has the capacity to serve as a significant instrument of understanding, 

cohesion and peaceful coexistence, and also a potent instrument of disunity and alienation, 

capable of truncating existing peace among a people. Whatever role language plays in any 

sociolinguistic and political environment is solely dependent on how individuals deploy it as 

they address matters of personal, communal or national interest. 

 

Indeed, language in a situation of conflict can be likened to a two-edged sword – it can be used 

to fan and intensify the fire of conflict, and it can also be cautiously and diplomatically used to 

douse and quench the raging fire of conflict and eventually restore normalcy, understanding 

and friendliness. Ike (232) observes that when individuals, communities or nations experience 

a sour relationship due to conflict of any magnitude, it is language that will resolve the matter, 

be it in or out of court, or in a panel or group discussion. However, if language of altercation 

is deployed in such a circumstance, it would inevitably escalate the existing conflict to an 

alarming proportion. 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

96                 Onyenweaku 

In most political entities comprising multi-ethnic and cultural nationalities such as Nigeria, 

conflict is an inevitable recurring phenomenon. This is usually occasioned by diverse interests 

and struggles over resource control and status symbols. Consequently, there is often 

unavoidable clash of interest among power brokers and among their teeming supporters. 

Conflict is a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, ideologies, beliefs 

and value systems. It is a clash of interest among individuals or groups over values and claims 

to scarce resources, status symbols and power (Nwaomah, 135; Daramola and Dararmola, 135). 

In such a situation, it is imperative that speakers, especially those in positions of authority, 

apply caution in their linguistic choices as they express their views on any sensitive national 

discourse.  This is crucial because the use of language of altercation would only trigger off 

conflict rather that mitigate it. 

 

Language of altercation, in the context of this paper, is an unguarded and provocative use of 

language that conveys an explicit or concealed hatred, enmity, resentment or bitter 

disagreement between the addresser and the addressee(s). It is an uncivil language use that 

projects a deep-seated contentious relationship between individuals or groups experiencing an 

unresolved clash of interest. Odo and Kayode (79) aver that the actual reason for the absence 

of peace in Nigeria is lack of appropriate language use that would truly unite and cement the 

unity of the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in the country. Indisputably, misuse of languagein 

a heterogeneous society aimed at promoting primordial sentiments for selfish reasons only 

fuels disunity, acrimony and conflict among the ethno-nationalities. It is against this backdrop 

that this paper examines language of altercation in conflict situation (with particular reference 

to Nigeria) and makes a critical analysis of some speeches of President Muhammadu Buhari 

and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. 

 

Language, Conflict/Conflict Situation and Language of Altercation in Interpersonal 

Communication: Conceptual Overview 

Language acquisition and the capacity to deploy it competently during interpersonal 

communication are part of the profound distinguishing gifts God gave to man. With the use of 

language, individuals express themselves and eventually communicate intensions, desires, 

likes, dislikes and feelings about issues around them. Consequently, language is at the epicenter 

of most human activities; whether we are conversing with people, settling disputes, setting 

goals or planning on how to accomplish a given task, language is essentially deployed for the 

actualization of the intended objective. 

 

Language is essentially a system of making meaning and expressing/communicating intentions 

and feelings. It is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, 

emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols; it is primarily a system of 

phonetic symbol for the expression of a communicable thoughts and feelings (Sapir, 8 cited in 

Emezue, 2). In consonance with the foregoing, while John Carol sees language as a structural 

system of arbitrary vocal sound and sequence of sounds used in interpersonal communication, 

Dates views it as a tool “we use to do things” (Ike, 12). This entails that language is often at 

the centre stage of almost all activities embarked upon by individuals within the human society. 

 

The importance of language is perhaps more evident in interpersonal communicative situations 

where its misuse could result in a face-off, bitter disagreement or even war. This explicates the 

need for caution and diplomacy in language use. However, individuals, in some occasions, 

advertently or otherwise use certain utterances that are quite provocative to the feelings and 

sensibilities of the addressee. Such a language use results in conflict situation in some 

occasions, and escalates already conflict situation in another occasion. Thus, what a language 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

97                 Onyenweaku 

user says is as crucial as the way he says it. Because language one uses is symptomatic of one’s 

total mental stability, it reflects one’s feelings and expresses the inner-workings of one’s mind 

(Nwokocha, 214) on one hand and also precisely captures the exact disposition of a speaker as 

well as his behavioural characteristics and penchant for particular attitudes on the other hand. 

So, an offensive language use reveals the feelings of the speaker about his addressee, andthis 

would only escalate altercation and promote conflict in the speaker’s physical and social 

environment. 

 

Conflict itself is an unavoidable part and parcel of human life so long as human beings coexist 

with one another. It most often arises due to differing views about things, situation, ideologies 

and desired expectations. Corser cited in Ogene (146) sees conflict as a struggle over values, 

claims to status, power and scares resources in which the aim of the conflicting party is to 

neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals. It is usually a serious disagreement, struggle or fight 

arising from or out of differing opinions, wishes, needs, values and interests between or among 

individuals or groups; it is equally an opponent-centred episode or series of episodes based 

upon incompatibility of goals, aims and values, and involves direct or personal interaction in 

which the opposing parties are perceived as controlling the desired goals, such actions 

introducing strain or stress in the relationship between the parties on the attainment of a set of 

interests or goals (Akpuru-Aja, 15; Nwaomah,95 citing Magagula,5; Alkali, 516). Because 

everyone or group wants the best part of everything available, there would be a clash of interest. 

It is this circumstance that breeds a conflict situation. 

 

A conflict situation, therefore, is a situation where there is serious disagreement and contention 

as a result of struggle over power, possession and control of scarce resources or simply because 

of incompatibility of value system, ideology, goals and expectations over life and issues. 

Nwaomah posits that a conflict situation becomes prevalent where the goals, aspirations, 

interests and needs of social groups cannot be achieved simultaneously and where the value 

system of such groups are at variance (135). This can be found rife within or between social 

relations such as ethnic groups, social institutions and organizations, religious groups, political 

parties, states and between sovereign nations. Humanity is inevitably entangled with conflict, 

and so long as individuals engage in interpersonal interactions, there would be unavoidable 

clash of interest. Conflict is, therefore, a perennial feature of social life.  

 

In a situation of conflict, irrespective of its kind or nature, language plays a significant role in 

its handling, management and resolution. This is because with the use of language, ideas that 

can inflame a society are widely propagated, accepted and acted upon. Such a provocative and 

unguarded language use is what we refer in this discourse to as language of altercation. 

Literature is not replete with a widely accepted definition (and explication) of the concept of 

language of altercation. Nevertheless, a probe into the denotative meaning of the term 

“altercation” would assist us to unravel (and arrive at) the meaning of language of altercation. 

To this end, we rely on Mckechnie’s (52) definition of the concept in the Webster’s New 

Universal Unabridged Dictionary, for it succinctly captures the perspective from which this 

discourse views and approaches the concept. According to him, the term “altercation” denotes 

“a warm contention in words; dispute carried on with heat or anger.” It is a controversy 

(expressed in words) arising from divergence of opinion and incompatibility of views, 

expectations and ideologies. This contention in words is usually expressed in indecent, anger-

filled and provocative utterances that depict unrestrained hate for one’s perceived rivals. It 

connotes derogatory remarks that are socially offensive targeted at a person or group of persons 

by an angry addresser. 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

98                 Onyenweaku 

In consonance with the foregoing, language of altercation can be seen as a provocative 

language use that conveys the hatred, rancor, enmity and open disagreement or face-off 

between an addresser and the addressee. The motivating factor for the use of this kind of 

language, according to Nwokocha (215), are ego exhibition, intimidation and unbridled 

arrogance. Furthermore, similar causative or inspiring factors may include: power intoxication, 

disenchantment over a system, prolonged grievances on a person or group, uncontrolled 

covetousness and subjugation of the down-trodden, injustice, avarice and personal 

aggrandizement. In fact, the list is almost inexhaustible. The ultimate objective of the use of 

language of altercation is to subdue one’s perceived enemy or enemies into perpetual 

apprehension and silence. 

 

A juxtaposition of our definition of altercation as “a warm contention in words…”, and Kuper 

and Kupers’ view of conflict as “a contentious relationship exemplified in words, revolutions 

and other struggles” reveals that language of altercation and conflict situation have something 

in common. This position is premised on the fact that a highly provocative or contentious 

utterance directed at one’s perceived rival (individual or group) has the potential to instigate 

and trigger off acrimony, violent demonstration, revolutionary struggles and eventually afull 

blown war. This is even more dangerous in a situation of conflict where there is already 

precarious security conditions – where a single unguarded utterance could escalate violence 

and result in loss of lives and property of the citizenry.The implication of the above is that 

language has power – power to calm down tension and power to bring about conflict, 

insecurity, killing and maiming in any sociopolitical environment, with its far-reaching 

consequences. 

 

Language of Altercation in Conflict Situation and Management: The Nigeria 

Experience 

Language use is a skillful activity which abhors levity inits handling, especially when it is used 

to address a sensitive matter in a pluralistic and ethno-cultural entity. This is imperative because 

its misuse has the capacity to jeopardize the corporate existence of the nation, especially in a 

conflict situation with all its uncertainties and volatility. Language is a powerful tool in the 

hands of the users. Inits social function, language has the feature of a double-edgedsword in a 

conflict situation– it can be used to fan the fire of crisis, or it can be used to solve delicate issues 

diplomatically (Nzeakor and Osundu, 356; Bivan and Byat, 9). In other words, language can 

be abused when it is used in negative ways to pull down rather than build up a society and its 

developmental efforts and achievements. 

 

Language of altercation truncates peace and peaceful coexistence among a people. It is often 

used to sow a seed of discord among the citizenry, especially in a conflict situation where there 

is glaring clash of interest among diverse social groups. When conflict breeds insecurity, it 

reflects in the kind of language people adopt to express their feelings and experiences. To this 

end, Ojaide (5) states that the period of conflict/insecurity creates its own language because 

people who are frightened, anxious,or, traumatized seek the language to express their inner and 

outer fears.Indeed, there is a profound effect which a conflict situation has on the speech 

mannerisms or patterns of language users. Because people speak out of strong emotions in such 

a period, there is the tendency that language of altercation could feature quite prominently in 

the speaker’s discourse. 

 

In Nigerian, conflict situation has become a new normal, especially in recent times. From the 

menace of the Fulani herdsmen, Boko Haram, kidnappers, to disturbances from the recent 

agitation of the IPOB members, bandits and the current unknown gunmen, insecurity has 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

99                 Onyenweaku 

become a part and parcel of life in Nigeria. Unfortunately, most of these circumstances are 

brought into existence by those in the corridor of power through their selfish acts orchestrated 

by political, economic and religious reasons. Those who hold political powers exploit these 

situations to advance their selfish interests at the expense of the peace and social stability and 

progress of the vulnerable citizens. For instance, most of the religious crises in the country are 

locked in with politics; those who are fond of political power hide under the garb of religion to 

twist  positions in their favour (Alokan, Ayodeji and Babalola, 169), mainly by engaging the 

dastardly services of some uninformed youths and fanatics to achieve their self-centered goals. 

Corroborating our position, Onyike (6) cited in Nzeakor and Osundu (370) insists that the 

constant witness of conflict in Nigeria is as a result of (i) inequitable access to power and 

resources (ii) denial of basic human rights (iii) non-democratic and exclusive governance (iv) 

discrimination on the bases of sex, religion, ethnic origin and socioeconomic status (v) total 

absence and abandonment of moral and ethical restraints in the use of power and management 

of public resources. 

 

Regrettably, the use of language of altercation in addressing burning national issues has further 

contributed very significantly in instigating rancor, division and insecurity in Nigeria. 

Individuals at the helm of affair – in the governance of the country are, unfortunately, worst 

offenders in this circumstance. From the President, Senators, members of the judiciary, to the 

Governors and their political associates, evidences abound where these occupants of sensitive 

political positions abuse and misuse language as they talk about national issues from their 

various personal perspectives. Similarly, from the leaders of the Niger Delta groups, those of 

the Indigenous People of Biafra, Arewa Consultative Forum, Odua People’s Congress, to those 

of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association, and the various leaderships of the youth wings 

of these sociocultural and political organizations, language of altercation has features in their 

respective speeches at one time or the other on sensitive nation issues. 

 

However, in spite of the far-reaching effects of such utterances (due to the social position of 

the speakers), highly placed individuals in Nigerian have continued to use certain language that 

depict hate, intimidation and insensitivity to the feelings of the addressees. The adoption of 

such unhealthy language has begun to attract the attention of concerned individuals and 

scholars in recent times; they are beginning to realize the tendency of such language use to 

further aggravate the already worsening crises and insecurity in the country. For instance, 

Nwosu laments: 

If I say that the Independence Day broadcast is the second hate speech I have heard  

from the President in a space of 40 days, I would be incorrect, especially as the details 

of what constitutes a hate speech is increasingly looking like the proverbial Malawian 

constitution of Kamuzu Banda’s. It is whatever they tell us that we accept as the law. 

So, I will only recall that, after being away for103 days, PMB returned to deliver one 

angry-speech (where he berated us for behaving badly, especially on the Social Media), 

and about 40 days later, he delivered yet another one (where he took the Igbo elders to 

the cleaners, over IPOB) Yes, PMB makes “angry speech” and not “hate speech.”What 

Nwosu prefers to call “angry speech” is what we refer to as language of altercation in 

this discourse. He went further to regale us with instances of this “angry speech.” 

According to him,  

 

In August (2017), he [President Muhammadu Buhari] not only addressed us as “my 

dear citizens” ( a reminder that we could well be subjects of an Imperial 

Majesty), he also accused us of crossing the “red line” – a line which we did not 

know who drew it or when it was drawn. Well, PMB then went ahead to draw 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

100                 Onyenweaku 

a new line; he called it “hate speech.” Till this day, we are still waiting for the 

DSS, the Defence Headquarters, the Ministry of Interior or the Attorney General 

to give us a breakdown of what does (and does not) constitute a “hate speech.”  

 

Indisputably, utterances made by those who occupy leadership positions, especially in a 

multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation such as Nigeria,“carry heavy weight,” and can 

influence people and situations in ways that might be beyond the imagination of the speakers. 

This accounts for why great caution is required in terms of linguistic choices to be made by 

those leaders as they air their views on any delicate and sensitive national issue. 

 

It is, unfortunately, a sad commentary that many occupants of political positions in Nigeria are 

constant users of language of altercation. The use of this language manifests more prominently 

during sensitive periods in the  country where there is usually a clash of interest among “powers 

that be.” In such situations, we witness fragrant abuse of language as they fight one another to 

pave way for themselves into one political position or the other. For example, According to 

Idris (244), the utterance credited to the former presidential flag bearer of All Progressive 

Congress in the 2011 electioneering campaign, Muhammadu Buhari, in which he said: “I will 

make Nigeria ungovernable if Jonathan wins in 2011” is a case in point. Also, he was quoted 

to have said in 2015 that “both monkey and baboon will be soaked in blood” if he failed the 

2015 general election. Similarly, Elder Godsday Orubebe’s comment (the former Minister of 

Niger Delta Affairs) on Channels Television in which he accused the then INEC chairman, 

Professor Ibrahim AttahiruJega, of being “tribalistic, selective and partial” (Idris, 259) in 

handling election matters under his watch indicates another instance of misuse of language on 

a critical national issue. It should be noted here that the mere fact that Professor Jega and 

Muhammadu Buhari share the same ethnic enclave makes the above utterance too sensitive 

during the period in which it was made. Such an allegation, whether true or false, has the 

capacity to provoke social unrest, demonstration and post-election violent conflict. These 

exemplified the use of language of altercation in a conflict situation, a very dangerous trend 

that has assumed an alarming dimension in contemporary Nigeria. 

 

In order to ensure the maintenance of peace and avoidance of conflict through appropriate 

language use in the society, it is crucial for speakers to be exposed to language education. 

Language education, in this context, refers to the sensitization of the citizenry in polite 

language use for the maintenance of peace and conflict management and resolution through 

effective use of language. This orientations equally involves the media practitioners and all 

those who pass information through the media – both in verbal and written platforms -- because 

of possible varied interpretations their listeners and readers may give to an utterance (Toyin, 

251). It is, therefore, imperative for language users to acquire relevant skills in language use 

that will help them maintain peace, prevent and resolve conflict that may arise in the course of 

human relations and verbal interactions. Such important skills include: (i) use of unambiguous 

words and expressions (ii)polite communication skill (iii) ability to clarify utterances that may 

be misunderstood by some listeners (iv) avoidance of unsubstantiated claims (v) tolerance of 

other people’ personal, divergent and opposing views on issues, etc. 

 

Furthermore, strict adherence to the maxims of Grice (maxims of quantity, quality, relation and 

manner) would assist language users immensely in ensuring the attainment and maintenanceof 

peace through their use of language. Grice had advised language user to “make [their] 

conversational contributions such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the 

acceptable purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which [they] are engaged (Grice,45 qtd 

in Ezeifeka, 80). Explicating his injunction further, speakers are enjoined to (i)try to make their 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

101                 Onyenweaku 

contribution one that is true, and not to say what is false or that for which they lack evidence 

(ii) to be relevant – by making appropriate linguistic choices that really address the issue at 

hand (iii) make their contributions as informative as required, and (iv) try to be perspicuous – 

by avoiding ambiguity, but being orderly, clear and brief in their utterances on any issue.This 

is, therefore, the need for a paradigm shift in the use of language in conflict situation (as evident 

in the contemporary conflict-stricken Nigeria) by all and sundry, especially among power 

brokers and those who control and influence a large number of ardent followers in the country. 

 

Data Presentation and Analysis 

Data for this study are textual in nature. They were randomly culled as excerpts from some of 

the “important” speeches delivered at different occasions by the two principal actors in the 

contemporary political melodrama in Nigeria – President Muhammadu Buhari and Mazi 

Nnamdi Kanu, the Nigerian President and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, 

respectively. The textual data were obtained from Daily Newspapers, live interviews and 

broadcast on television stations in Nigeria. 

 

The work first presents isolated excerpts from some speeches of President Muhammadu 

Buhari, and subsequently those of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The selected discourses are 

presentedherein below: 

1. “Recent calls on restructuring, quite proper and legitimate, has let in highly irresponsible 

groupsto call for dismemberment of the country. We cannot allow such advocacy.”  

2. “As a young Army officer, I took part from the beginning to the end in our tragic civil war 

costing about two million lives, resulting in fearful destruction and untold suffering. Those 

whoare agitating for a rerun were not born in 1967 and have no idea of the horrendous 

consequences of the civil conflict, which we went through.”  

3. “I am very disappointed that responsible leaders of those communities [Igbo communities] 

do not warn theirhot-headed youths what the country went through. Those who were there 

should tell those who were not there the consequences of such folly.” 

4. “At all events, proper dialogue and any desired constitutional change should take place in a 

rational manner, at the National and state Assemblies. These are the proper and legal fora for 

national debate, not some lopsided, undemocratic body with predetermined set of 

objectives.” 

5. “Government is keeping up with the momentum of dialogue with stakeholders in the Niger 

Delta to keep the peace. We intend to address genuine grievancesof those communities[not 

the agitation from thosein the South-east region]. Government is grateful to the responsible 

leadership of those communities and will pursue lasting peace in the Niger Delta.” 

In a recent statement during his meeting with the new Service Chiefs over the agitations and 

social unrest in the South-east region of the country, President Muhammadu Buhari made the 

following statements (culled from the Guardian (online) of June 2, 2021): 

6. “We will treat them [the IPOB members] in the language they understand.” 

7.“They [the agitators] will soon have the shock of their lives.” 

8. “We are going to be very hard sooner or later.” 

Furthermore, during his interview on a television station on June 10, 2021 as captured in Punch 

Newspaper, President Buhari said: 

9. “That IPOB is just like a dot in a circle. Even if they want to exit [through secession], 

they will have no access to anywhere.” (Square brackets, mine) 

Similarly, in another interview on Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) on June 11, 2021, 

President Buhari said these (to the secessionists – IPOB and Oduduwa members): 

10. “I will arrest, try and jail those fomenting trouble in Nigeria.” 

11.“It is now fire for fire.” 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

102                 Onyenweaku 

In the same vein, while defending his perceived accusation of President Muhammadu Buhari 

of indulging in a hate speech (language of altercation) in his reaction against the agitations by 

the Indigenous People of Biafra, ShehuGarba (the Senior Special Assistant to the President on 

Media and Publicity) quoted some “angry speeches” by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (in Daily Sun 

Newspaper of October 11, 2017) “as being circulated on the social media” as followed: 

12. “I will go to Abuja, and when I am coming back, I will bring Buhari’s head.” 

13. “If they don’t give us Biafra, therewill be nothing left breathing in that zoo called 

Nigeria.” 

14. “If they don’t give us a date for referendum, there will be no election in Anambra or 

any partof Biafra land.” 

15. “It is clear that the only language the zoo called Nigeria understands is war and 

death, and we are ready for war.” 

16. “From today forward,I put the protection of Biafra land in the hands of the Biafra 

Security Service.” 

17. “If the zoo Army enters Biafra land, they will die.” 

18.“Buhari is a mad man.” 

19.“It is either Biafra or death.” 

20. “I call on all Igbos who have the know-how to manufacture bombs, arms and 

ammunitions tocome forward. We need to take this war to the zoo.” 

In a related development, the Media and Publicity Secretary of IPOB, in his response to the 

proscription of IPOB by the federal government of Nigeria and branding it a terrorist 

organization, according to Attah (45) made the following statements: 

21. “I want to make it absolutely clear to all and sundry that IPOB does not condone and will 

never engage in any crime or violence, no matter the level of provocation by the barbaric 

Buhariregime. All spurious allegations sprouted by Lai Muhammad to justify his 

barbarismare nothing more than pure lies, fabricated to give IPOB a bad name….” 

22. “…Recorded incidents of lawlessness normally happens when soldiers convey on the venue 

of such peaceful gathering and open fire on unarmed civilians. It is IPOB that are the victims 

of statelawlessness. We have at various times been visited with midnight abduction, torture, 

extra-judicial execution, humiliation and imprisonment without trial, all perpetrated by 

Buhari’s police andsoldiersmade up of Hausa-Fulani Islamic fundamentalists.” 

A cursory look at the words and expressions in bold prints in the isolated excerpts above 

indicate that they constitute language of altercation. These utterances made by the two leaders 

examined in this study respectively bring to the fore the fact that some occupants of leadership 

positions in Nigerian are highly deficient in terms of decent, polite and civil language use, 

particularly in the periodsof conflicts when their emotions are quite high and strong. 

 

Discussion 

A critical examination of the foregoing data (extracted exclusively for the purpose of this study 

from President Muhammadu Buhari and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) obviously reveals an “overdose” 

of fragrant use of language of altercation. There is apparently a conflict situation existing 

between the two principal actors on the one hand and the millions of people whose interest they 

represent on the other hand. But unfortunately, both of them carelessly indulge in the use of 

provocative language as it is evident in this study. For instance, it is provocative for President 

Buhari to describe a group of people agitating for an interest (which is their constitutional right 

in a democratic nation) as an “irresponsible group” with “hot-headed youths,” and then accuse 

them of “agitating for a rerun” of the 1967-1970 Nigerian civil war. For this reason, he went 

further to threaten them recently by asserting that ‘they will have the shock of their lives” after 

being “treated in a language they understand.” Again, President Buhari currently engaged in 

another use of language of altercation when he stated (in a violent period in the country) that 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

103                 Onyenweaku 

an entire geopolitical region in Nigeria is “like a dot in a circle” and that “even if they want to 

exit, they will have access to anywhere.” Such utterances directed at a section of a country by 

an incumbent President is unhealthy, provocative and insulting. Furthermore, it is an 

inappropriate use of language to say that “it is now fire for fire” against citizens of a nation 

simply because a group of people from those regions engaged in an agitation for self-

determination in a democratic regime. 

 

On the other hand, it is equally unhealthy, impolite and linguistically inappropriate for Mazi 

Nnamdi Kanu to use those provocative utterances and insulting words on the President and the 

Nigerian state irrespective of his feelings and personal perspectives and interests. For example, 

it is quite abusive to describe a president of a country as “a mad man,” and to call Nigerian “a 

zoo.” It is also inappropriate and threatening to assert that “it is either Biafra or death.” In the 

same vein, urging his supporters who have the skills to manufacture bombs and ammunitions 

to go into action and produce them because “[they] are ready for war” is absolutely dangerous 

in a situation of conflict. It also signals a threat to maintain that “nothing will be left breathing 

in that zoo if they don’t give [them] Biafra.”  

 

Indeed, these unfortunate exemplifications of language of altercation are too sensitive, inciting 

and dangerous in a country that is highly bedeviled by insecurity. Because they come from 

“powers at the centre” and people who command large followership, the negative effects of 

such utterances are unimaginable. For example, describing the Nigerian Police and Army as 

‘Buhari’s Police and Soldiers,” and the present government as a “barbaric regime” can fuel 

hate, disenchantment, acrimony and violence, especially as they emanate from the “powers that 

be” and controllers and shapers of opinions, views and actions of a large audience. 

 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Language is, incontrovertibly, a potent instrument of peace initiation, maintenance and 

strengthening; it can also serve as a weapon of disunity, disintegration and violent conflict 

promotion. Language of altercation as it has become evident in this study is an ill wind that 

blows no one any good, especially when it is used in a conflict situation. The position of this 

paper, therefore, is that language should be used cautiously, politely and diplomatically to 

maintain, manage and resolve conflict and not to be used provocatively to escalate it. For 

language to play its expected role in this circumstance, it must be a positive language that is 

polite, soothing, peaceful, factual and friendly – one that does not convey directly or indirectly 

a feeling of hatred, rancor and acrimony. Because emotions are usually high and strong during 

a period of conflict, deploying language of altercation in airing one’s views on sensitive issues 

would inevitably fan the fire of conflict rather than mitigate the situation. To this end, this paper 

recommends that: 

(i)Occupants of exalted public offices in Nigeria should, as a matter of necessity, desist from 

making unsubstantiated and provocative claims on sensitive national discourse. 

(ii) Leaders at all levels of governance should jettison the use of language of altercation/hate 

speech both in their utterances and in writing as they advance their views on any matter. 

(iii) The media professionals should not accept to publish any writeup with obvious or implied 

language of altercation. 

(iv)The Ministry of Information should organize public orientation programmes to educate the 

masses on the need to be civil and polite in their language use. 

(v) Individuals who occupy leadership positions and command large followership should be 

cautious in making linguistic choices while addressing burning national issues. 

 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

104                 Onyenweaku 

Works Cited 

Akpuru-Aja, Aja. Basic Concepts, Issues and Strategies of Peace and Conflict  

Resolution.Enugu: Keny and Brothers Enterprise, 2007. Print. 

Alkali, Yusuf. “Conflict Management: Challenges and Prospects of Employees’  

Motivation in Nigerian Polytechnics.” BakoloriJoournal of General Studies, 3.2 

(2011): 516-518. Print. 

Alokan, Olusegun; Ayodeji, Peters and Babalola, Fanmilola. “Literacy as a Recipe for  

Solving Christian-Muslim Crisis in Nigeria,” Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in  

Literacy and Language Studies. Ed. Onukaogu, Chukwuemeka Eze. Owerri: Afrika-

Link books, 2012. 165-184. Print. 

Attah, Aloysius. Propaganda against us will Fail. Sunday Sun Newspaper, October 1, 2017.  45 

 .Print. 

Bivan, Amos D. and Byat, Grace C. “English Language as a Tool for Peace in Nigeria,” 

NATECEP Journal of English Language and Communication Studies, 11 (2015):  

9. Print. 

Daramola, C.O. and Daramola, F.O. “Conflict and Conflict Management in Nigerian  

Secondary Schools.” Nigerian Journal of Sociology of Education, 5.1 (2011): 35- 

36. Print. 

Emezue G.I.N. Pragmatics and the Analysis of Discourse. Enugu:Sandrew Productions  

Limited, 2011. Print. 

Ezeifeka, Chinwe. Discourse Analysis: Concepts and Approaches.Patrobas Nigerian Limited,  

2018. Print. 

Guardian Newspaper (Online). June 2, 2021. Web. 

Idris, Shehu. “The Role of Language in Enhancing Security in the 21st Century: The Case of  

Nigeria.” Journal of the Literary Society of Nigeria, 9 (2017): 294. Print. 

Ike, Ndubuisi J. Language and Nation Development: The Nigerian Experience. Abuja: Wilbest 

Educational Publishers, 1998. Print. 

Ike, Ndubuisi, J. Sociolinguistics. Abuja: Wilbest Educational Publishers, 2007. Print 

Kuper, A and Kuper, J. The Social Science Encyclopedia. United Kingdom: Routledge  

Publishers, 2004. Print. 

Mckechnie, Jean L. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2nd edition). USA: New  

World Dictionaries/Simon and Schuster, 1983. Print. 

Nwaomah, S.M. “Religious Crises in Nigeria: Manifestations, Effects and the Way Forward.” 

 Journal of Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology in Practice, 3.2 (2011): 135. 

Print.  

Nwokoch, Uzoma. “Language of Altercation in Achebe’s Arrow of God and Anthills of the 

Savannah.” Literary Parade. Ed. Nwokocha, Uzoma. Owerri: Crystal Publishers, 1998.  

214-215. Print. 

Nwosu, Steve. “That October 1 Hate Speech.” Daily Sun Newspaper, October 4, 2017. 4. 

Print. 

Nzeakor, Ngozi   Christian and Odundu, Patience Akuu. “Language: A Tool for Conflict 

Resolution and Nation Building: The Nigeria Example.” The Humanities and Nation 

Building. Nwadilor, Kannayoet’el. Awka: Fab Aniel Nigerian Limited, 2013. 370. 

Print. 

Odo, Agbo Joseph and Kayode, Okundaro Benson. “The Role of Language in Sustaining Peace 

and National Development in Nigeria.” NATECEP Journal of English Language and  

Communication Studies,”11 (2015): 97. Print. 

Ogene, S.O. “Violent Conflicts in Nigeria: Patterns and Resolution Option.” Journal of 

Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology, 1.12 (2011): 46. Print. 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

105                 Onyenweaku 

Ojaide, Tanure. “African Literature and Vision amidst Insecurity.” Journal of Literary Society 

Of Nigeria, 9 (2017): 5. Print. 

Shehu, Garba.”Re-That October 1 Hate Speech.” Daily Sun Newspaper, October11, 2017. 14.  

Print. 

Taiwo-Obalanye, Juliana. “I will Address Genuine Grievances – Buhari.” Daily Sun 

Newspaper, 

October 1, 2017. 45. Print. 

Toyin, Oyekunle. “The Place of Language in Maintaining Peace and Security in Nigeria.”  

Journal ofNational Association of Women in Colleges of Education, 17.1 (2013): 250- 

251. Print. 

 


