Description
Terrorism is an issue of global concern, and the use of the term is widely contested with no agreed definition. Yet, there exists a paucity of research on how government, including state actors, construe terrorism and their response to it from a critical terrorism perspective using the herdsmen, banditry, and the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) in Nigeria as case studies. Drawing on a Critical Terrorism Studies lens and underpinned by social constructionist theory, the study dissects how the language of ‘terrorism’ is used in problematic and contested terms to decide what group gets labelled as terrorists. It finds that factors such as politics and religion of key state actors, including the government, seems to influence how terrorism is construed and inadvertently lead to the labelling of groups such as IPOB seeking self-determination as terrorist whilst herdsmen and banditry that have led to the enormous loss of lives and properties appears not to be considered same. The study also found harsher counterterrorism responses to such groups so labelled as terrorist compared to those not receiving such label and further building public resentment and distrust for the government counterterrorism response. In conclusion, the study calls for and recommends a better conceptualisation and fair usage of the term ‘terrorism’ n a way that is devoid of bias and regardless of the state’s political or religious affiliation.
