BRICS and Nigeria: Making AI work for national strategic communication
As BRICS deepens its role in global governance, generative artificial intelligence is emerging as both an instrument and a risk for collective state communication and how states manage this technology will shape influence, legitimacy and development outcomes across the Global South. Colleagues, policy makers and friends; I write from the perspective of a Nigerian scholar […]
As BRICS deepens its role in global governance, generative artificial intelligence is emerging as both an instrument and a risk for collective state communication and how states manage this technology will shape influence, legitimacy and development outcomes across the Global South.
Colleagues, policy makers and friends; I write from the perspective of a Nigerian scholar who engages in comparative work on media, governance and digital technologies. At the recent conference on BRICS strategic communication titled: “BRICS Strategic Communication in Global Governance”, which held on 31st October, 2025 at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS), I presented a study titled: “Interoperable and Ethical GenAI: A Staged Model for BRICS Strategic Communication” (GenAI stands for Generative Artificial Intelligence). The study combined documentary analysis with fifteen expert interviews across selected jurisdictions, and it produced findings that are important for Nigeria, whether we remain a partner or aspire to full membership.
First, the stark truth: capacity is uneven. Some actors possess mature domestic AI ecosystems, routine multilingual monitoring and procurement resilience. Others, including many African-facing institutions, confront limited compute, sparse language corpora and donor dependence. This asymmetry is not merely technical; it shapes choices about vendors, the ability to pilot interoperable tools, and the credibility of collective responses to information crises. For Nigeria, which currently engages BRICS as a partner, this finding is critical. It shows that without deliberate investments we risk being a passive consumer of services rather than a co-designer of the communication architecture.
Second, we found a persistent principle-practice gap in standards and provenance. Summit communiqués and institutional statements often affirm ethical AI and responsible use, yet operational metadata schemas, model-cards and provenance stamps rarely move from paper to practice. In pilot settings where partners did adopt simple provenance protocols, joint validation and rapid alert exchange became feasible. This is the pragmatic part: standards work, but only when coupled with incentives to adopt them.
Third, delegation matters. Pilots that operated with a clearly mandated lead or a small secretariat, sometimes hosted within multilateral finance bodies, integrated standards and dashboards much faster.
Delegated coordination reduces transaction costs, enables pooled procurement and institutionalises training pathways. Finally, ethics count only when translated into tools. Interviewees repeatedly emphasised that model documentation, human-in-the-loop checks and transparent provenance increase stakeholder trust in ways that abstract guidelines do not.
What do these findings imply for Nigeria? Several concrete gains flow from an intentional engagement with BRICS mechanisms. As a partner we already access forums and finance channels; as a full member we could exercise greater voice in setting standards, shape pooled procurement arrangements, and secure resources for corpus-building in our national languages. Practically, full membership would facilitate the negotiation of preferential terms for access to models, investment in local compute, and the chance to host pilot projects that build national capacity. For Nigeria’s media sector, universities and public institutions, this could mean more rapid localisation of tools, improved translation for Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo, and better resilience against AI-enabled disinformation.
At the same time, we must be candid about risks. Greater access to generative AI without commensurate governance invites epistemic harms, mistranslation and reputational vulnerability. Nigeria must therefore bind benefits to safeguards. To that end, I propose five immediate, practicable steps.
One; commission a joint baseline assessment of national capacities, language corpora and vendor dependencies. The New Development Bank is well placed to finance such an audit and to broker pooled procurement where economies of scale matter.
Two, prioritise corpus-building for our major languages, and allocate grants to universities and public broadcasters to develop annotated datasets. Language is not a luxury; it is central to credibility and to preventing harmful mistranslations.
Three, adopt simple, interoperable provenance and metadata templates and pilot them in tightly scoped projects with regional partners. Model-cards and provenance stamps are low-cost, high-value instruments.
Four, establish a lightweight national AI communications cell that coordinates across ministries, the public broadcaster and civil society. This cell should focus on standards, training and incident response rather than centralised content control.
Five, insist on independent evaluation and civil-society participation. Transparency builds trust, and registries of deployed AI tools with public audit reports will strengthen both domestic legitimacy and international credibility.
Finally, for those of us in the academy and in the media, there is an obligation to keep this conversation public and evidence based. We must avoid platitudes and focus on operational steps. The gracious acceptance
by “Daily Trust” newspaper to publish on this subject is timely. Newspapers, universities and policy centres can help to demystify GenAi, to map realistic timelines and to hold institutions to account.
Moreover, permit me now, to offer a brief account of the other important papers delivered at the BRICS strategic communication conference in Moscow, and to draw out what these contributions mean for Nigeria and our region. The conference, which was organised by RAS Institute of Philosophy in collaboration with the Department of Eastern Philosophies, UNESCO Chair, among others, convened scholars from 23 countries and showcased 55 presentations that traversed institutional reform, public diplomacy and the mounting influence of artificial intelligence. The official conference report provides the programme and abstracts.
Professor Guihong Zhang of Fudan University urged delegates to prioritise areas where institutional influence matters most, notably reform of global financial governance. His argument is practical: strategic communication supports efforts to rebalance IMF and World Bank representation and to lessen dependence on a single reserve currency. For Nigeria this is relevant because economic sovereignty is central to our development options.
Professor Greg Simons from Bangladesh reminded us that BRICS must combine defensive resilience with proactive narratives. He argued that members should both guard against attempts to fragment the group and offer a credible alternative for Global South countries. This dual posture aligns with our national interest. We must defend our informational space while also presenting positive policy options that attract cooperation and investment.
From Tehran, Professor Ehsan Rasoulinezhad highlighted how BRICS offers states under heavy external pressure an avenue for meaningful engagement. His paper showed that membership or partnership can reframe narratives of isolation into those of sovereign partnership. This has a direct bearing on Nigeria, where reputational management and diversified diplomatic ties matter for trade and security, especially this time as Nigeria struggles to contain President Trump’s “country-of-particular-concern” threat.
Professor Rajan Kumar presented an Indian perspective that highlighted BRICS’ transformation into a broader coalition of the South. He noted the group’s stance on key international crises and emphasised the political meaning of membership expansion. The lesson for Nigeria is clear: engagement with BRICS is not merely transactional. It involves positioning, narrative-consistency and readiness to contribute constructively.
Professor Evgeny Pashentsev’s presentation on AI was especially timely. He combined optimism about AI’s potential with sober warnings about widening technological inequality and the risks posed by malicious uses. His call for ethical responsibility, and for institutional safeguards, echoes the research findings I presented on interoperability and provenance.
In conclusion, engage BRICS strategically: assess capacities, build language assets, pilot standards, delegate coordination, and ensure transparent and accountable AI-governance to strengthen development, communication and democratic-resilience.
Dr Ibrahim is of the Department of Mass Communication, University of Maiduguri, and wrote in from Geidam, Yobe State