Peace is one of the few public policies that cannot be legislated into existence. It cannot be imposed by executive orders, negotiated solely in conference halls, or sustained through military deployments.
Lasting peace grows from trust, and trust grows when people believe that the process leading them there belongs equally to everyone.
It is therefore encouraging that the Plateau State Government is reportedly considering another comprehensive peace initiative following the recommendations of the Presidential Peace Committee that recently briefed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The President’s deep interest in restoring lasting peace to Plateau State presents perhaps the greatest opportunity in decades for the state to fundamentally rethink its approach to conflict management and reconciliation.
Every sincere effort towards peace deserves public support. Yet support for peace should never exclude honest reflection.
History has a remarkable way of reminding societies that good intentions, however noble, do not always produce the desired outcomes. Twenty-two years ago, Plateau State embarked upon what remains one of the most comprehensive peace engagements in its history. The Plateau Peace Conference of 2004 assembled representatives of ethnic nationalities, religious organisations, traditional institutions, women, youth, civil society, and government to search collectively for solutions to recurring violence.
The conference confronted difficult questions that many preferred to avoid. It examined indigeneship, citizenship, traditional institutions, land ownership, political representation, justice, religion, and security. Its report: “Plateau Resolves,” became an important historical document and an ambitious attempt to diagnose the state’s deepest challenges.
Few would disagree that the conference succeeded in identifying many of the structural issues confronting Plateau. Where opinion continues to differ is whether the process ultimately produced the broad social consensus required for lasting reconciliation.
That distinction is important.
A peace conference may produce an excellent report and yet fail to produce sufficient public ownership. Reports become meaningful only when communities recognise themselves in both the process and the outcome.
The passage of time invites another important reflection. Many recommendations contained in Plateau Resolves were never fully implemented. Some required constitutional reforms beyond the authority of the Plateau State Government. Others became victims of changing political priorities after the State of Emergency ended. Some remained subjects of disagreement among stakeholders whose interpretations of history differed considerably.
This reality should not diminish the efforts of those who participated in the 2004 conference. On the contrary, it should encourage today’s leaders to study that experience with humility before embarking upon another ambitious undertaking.
Every successful institution learns from its previous attempt before beginning a new one.
That is why the present moment calls for careful thinking.
If the objective is simply to revisit the conversations of 2004, Plateau risks reopening old debates without necessarily discovering new solutions. If, however, the objective is to build a peace architecture capable of responding to the realities of today and beyond, then the state has an opportunity to begin on an entirely new foundation.
The Plateau of today is remarkably different from the Plateau of 2004.
A generation has grown up since then. New constitutional debates have emerged. The economy has changed. Technology has transformed communication. Population movements have altered social relationships. Thousands of young people have known no other home except Plateau, regardless of the ancestral origins of their families.
Equally important, President Tinubu has introduced a new national momentum for reconciliation in Plateau State. His interventions on behalf of victims of violence, his commitment to critical infrastructure, and his insistence on peaceful coexistence create an opportunity that should not be constrained by frameworks developed under entirely different historical circumstances.
This is why Plateau should resist the temptation to simply produce another edition of an earlier document.
Instead, it should establish what may appropriately be called the Plateau Peace and Shared Prosperity Charter (PPSPC).
The significance of the name is deliberate.
The emphasis shifts from resolving disputes to building a shared future.
The emphasis shifts from competing historical narratives to common aspirations.
The emphasis shifts from conflict management to peace development.
Unlike a conventional peace conference that concludes with a report, the Plateau Peace and Shared Prosperity Charter should be conceived as a permanent state-building program built on five carefully sequenced phases.
The first phase should be a three-month independent review and learning process. This should critically examine previous peace initiatives in Plateau State, including the Plateau Resolves of 2004, reports of judicial commissions, community peace accords, academic studies and recommendations made by religious and traditional institutions over the last twenty-five years. The purpose of this phase would not be to reopen old arguments but to identify areas of consensus, lessons learnt, and recommendations that remain relevant.
Running concurrently should be the establishment of a Strategic Media and Public Engagement Committee, comprising respected journalists, broadcasters, communication scholars, digital media experts, community radio practitioners, religious communication specialists and representatives of the creative industry. Its mandate would be to design a comprehensive communication strategy that promotes factual reporting, counters misinformation, encourages responsible public discourse, and keeps citizens accurately informed throughout the peace process. Peace is sustained not only by good policies but also by credible communication.
The second phase should involve six months of structured consultations across all seventeen Local Government Areas. These consultations should include traditional rulers, ethnic associations, religious organisations, women, youth, persons living with disabilities, business leaders, professional bodies, security agencies, and resident communities. Independent conflict-resolution facilitators should moderate every engagement to ensure fairness and public confidence.
Throughout this phase, the media should function not merely as observers but as partners in peace-building. Radio discussions, television programs, newspaper features, podcasts, digital town halls, and community broadcasting should explain the objectives of the consultations, encourage informed public participation, and provide regular feedback. Citizens unable to attend physically should have multiple platforms through which their voices can be heard. Peace communication must be continuous, inclusive, and interactive.
The third phase should culminate in a Plateau Peace Convention, bringing together delegates nominated from the seventeen local government consultations. Rather than concentrating exclusively on historical grievances, the Convention should focus on designing institutions capable of preventing future conflicts and strengthening public trust.
The guiding question should be simple:
