Is Zagazola Makama now siding with Plateau people?

Is Zagazola Makama now siding with Plateau people?

By: Our Reporter

It is striking how often Masara Kim’s name has become a recurring point of fixation for certain commentators, serving as a convenient target for extended commentary and attack. Among them is Zagazola Makama, whose interventions on Plateau and broader security issues have increasingly raised concerns about fairness, consistency, and credibility. Rather than offering careful analysis grounded in transparent evidence, his commentary often relies on sweeping assertions, loaded framing, and narratives that appear designed more to influence public perception than to clarify the facts.

For instance, last May, Makama published what critics said were AI-generated images purporting to show Abu Bilal al-Mainuki, reportedly a senior IS commander killed by the Nigerian army. He stated that he had legitimately obtained the image and was praised in some quarters for publishing it first. But the controversy that followed raised broader concerns about verification standards, editorial judgment, and the risks of circulating unverified material in conflict reporting. As one critic put it: “This isn’t reporting; it’s narrative engineering. When those covering security issues choose fabrication, public trust collapses and we’re all in danger.”

The same pattern appeared last March after more than 35 people were killed in a terror attack in Angwan Rukuba, north Jos, on Palm Sunday. Within hours of the incident, Makama reportedly described it as a clash between rival cult gangs. That speed, together with the absence of publicly presented evidence at the time, raised legitimate questions about whether the incident had been characterised prematurely and whether such framing diverted attention from establishing the full facts.

Makama also claimed that my video reporting of an attack on mourners during a mass funeral in Nding Sesut, in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State on May 6, was staged. Yet the incident was associated with four recorded deaths: Pam Gwom, 62; Dayal Davou Gyang, 32; Dadung Julius Gwom, 24; and Ezra Musa Rondong, 38. In the face of those fatalities, dismissing the footage outright raises serious questions about the basis for that denial and about the standards being applied when local accounts of violence are challenged rather than investigated.

Makama has on several occasions dismissed terrorist attacks in Plateau and other Middle Belt states, including incidents in which children and other civilians were killed, as mere clashes between farmers and herders. He has also portrayed civilian guards struggling to protect their homes and families with homemade pipe guns and hunting rifles as terrorists or tribal militias, reinforcing a “clash” narrative that many affected communities view as misleading. More recently, he has sought to position himself as an advocate for the same people whose accounts and suffering he has often downplayed. That contradiction is difficult to ignore.

Mr. Idris Aminu, also known as Zagazola Makama, has entered this debate too late to exploit temporary disagreement within Plateau for his own argument. Commissioner Peter Gwom has already apologised for the remarks captured in the video, and by all indications that issue has begun to settle. What should not be allowed to happen, however, is for outside commentary to weaponise internal tensions in order to present Plateau people as confused, divided, or incapable of recognising what they have lived through. We may disagree among ourselves, as any community does, but that does not mean we are unable to identify harmful narratives when we see them.

Zagazola Makama’s recent statement about the views of the youth leaders tries to present itself as a defence of truth and accountability, but it raises the very questions it seeks to dismiss. A commentary that accuses others of sensationalism must itself be held to the highest standard of accuracy, transparency, and consistency. That standard is not met by broad assertions, selective outrage, or repeated efforts to discredit community voices whenever they challenge official or convenient narratives.

The central problem with the statement is not that it asks for scrutiny. Scrutiny is necessary in every conflict. The problem is that scrutiny appears to flow in only one direction. When victims, youth leaders, or local advocates raise alarm over killings, displacement, or insecurity in Plateau, they are swiftly portrayed as emotional, manipulative, or misinformed. But when the same commentator advances claims that align with official talking points or minimise the scale of attacks, those claims are presented as sober analysis. That is not balance. It is selective credibility.

The statement also relies heavily on a familiar tactic: shifting attention from the substance of people’s concerns to the character of those raising them. Instead of confronting why so many communities feel unheard, unprotected, and repeatedly gaslit after attacks, the article frames dissenting voices as conflict entrepreneurs and social media actors feeding off tragedy. That rhetorical move may be effective propaganda, but it is not evidence. Communities that have buried their dead do not need lectures about tone; they need honesty, protection, and a record of facts that does not change depending on who is being shielded from criticism.

If there are concerns about miscaptioned videos or inaccurate claims, those should be addressed through verifiable facts, transparent sourcing, and consistent correction standards for everyone, not just for activists or community-based reporters. The same burden of proof must apply to commentators who dismiss deadly incidents, recast attacks as ordinary clashes without public evidence, or repeatedly adopt language that appears to downplay organised violence. In a place as traumatised as Plateau, careless framing is not a minor error. It shapes public understanding, influences policy responses, and can deepen mistrust among people who already feel abandoned.

The article further weakens itself by pretending that criticism from within a community automatically settles the matter. It does not. Communities are not monolithic, and no single youth body, government official, or commentator can claim absolute ownership of the truth. What matters is whether the facts presented are complete, independently verifiable, and responsibly framed. That is the standard the public should insist on, especially from anyone claiming expertise in security and conflict reporting.

There is also a deeper issue at stake. When the voices of grieving communities are routinely met with suspicion while official failures are explained away as complexity, the result is not peacebuilding. It is a culture of denial. Plateau has suffered too much for its pain to be filtered through narratives that appear more concerned with managing perception than confronting recurring insecurity. Any commentator who wants to be taken seriously must be willing to apply the same level of suspicion to military briefings, political narratives, and all sides of the conflict, not only to those documenting local suffering.

The public does not need more personality wars. It needs rigorous reporting, transparent methods, and a refusal to weaponise uncertainty against victims. If CNN to command.

Is Zagazola Makama now siding with Plateau people?