Trust is currency. Successful individuals, companies and governments learn very quickly that trust significantly eases the process of getting an audience to consider a new product, support a new initiative or champion a new policy. They work to earn that trust by modelling it, honouring their commitments, being forthright with challenges that prevent them from fulfilling their value proposition and carrying the audience along every step of their journey.
While trust is the most mutually fulfilling route an individual, company or government can take towards forging emotional connections to their audiences, it isn’t the only way. Fear can also be a powerful motivator for audiences, and the subject of our newsletter, the series of increasingly complex events that have marred the public service career of the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Ibrahim Magu, provides us with an important perspective on the benefits and shortcomings of fear as an audience motivator.
At Culture Intelligence for RED, it is our business to understand how culture influences current events and how that information can be channelled productively for our clients. This is especially true for government clients who must convince audiences not to believe in a product that can be tested, or a service that can be repeated, but in an intangible message that must be utterly convincing. Because of the outsize influence culture has on how an electorate perceives its appointed and elected officials, there is a constant need to manage public perception. Nigerian public officials have been more open to the idea of consulting firms providing insights to navigate the electoral/appointment process, an open-mindedness that evaporates once they can weaponise fear using the tools that public office provides.
For the most part, Ibrahim Magu’s tenure as acting Chairman of the EFCC was marred by distrust. He was denied confirmation into a more permanent role multiple times by the Nigerian legislature, who cited his records and found them devoid of the experience required to helm such an important role. Many allege his relationship with the presidency provided him protection and the confidence he needed to weaponise the fear of the institution he led.
A report in 2017 accused the chairman of graft, the very offense that his organisation was tasked to end, but was dismissed through the press and his accusers threatened, however subtly. For nearly 5 years, Magu was allowed to operate as the Acting Chairman of the MDA. The government’s inability to find a suitable replacement and the constant accusations of corruption and graft, weakened what remained of a tenuous relationship of trust between the government and the electorate. For a government that has been accused of high-handedness in many quarters, it made no sense that they would continue to support someone whose actions triggered disproportionate reactions. The presidency pitched its tent with Magu, defending him where it wasn’t necessary and preparing the stage for revelations that would potentially dent the government’s already fraught image.
Last week, Magu was ‘arrested’ on conspiracy and graft charges. The was facilitated by the Department of State Services (DSS), a covert arm of the law enforcement agencies assigned to protect the highest ranking government officials. Magu was publicly disgraced and detained, and the decision to use DSS agents rather than regular law enforcement seemed to emphasise the assumption that he was not only corrupt, but he was also dangerous. It then begged the question why the government was so willing to support him just a year before.
In what passes for crisis management that’s more known for riot police than dialogue, the government tried to distance itself from the arrest, alleging that Magu had only been ‘invited’ for questioning. Further snafus would only worsen the perception citizens had of the Presidency who gave the order for this warrant. Managing information on behalf the government can be tricky, and managing the same for a government with a nagging trust deficit can seriously hinder the capacity to execute properly for any media firm. But that wasn’t crux of the matter, the event only went viral because millennial audiences consume information far more quickly than previous generations. Blunders are so much harder to hide now.
Read Also: Commonwealth Secretary-General urges peaceful, credible and inclusive elections in Malawi
Rather than stay quiet while rumors and mistruth take the airwaves and gain mainstream attention – just because the public don’t trust you anyway – the situation with Magu would have been more advisable and beneficial if the government had controlled the narrative by introducing their version of events to the public even if the sole aim is to reduce the incidence of fake news and general confusion.
Here are a few steps we believe could have been taken to reduce the trust deficit currently being accorded the present administration.
The government should have long before now set the record straight that it was not invested in keeping Ibrahim Magu as acting chairman of the EFCC by publicly documenting the process of recruiting his replacement through reports in the dailies or interviews granted to prominent journalists. They could have also explained their decision to keep him in the role and the rules that dictate the tenure of an acting chairman + what metrics are used to evaluate his performance in the role. The government could have also worked to assure the public that all petitions against him will be looked into by an independent panel.
This panel – and its composition should have been constituted and made public to raise awareness and build trust.
Political influencers could have been engaged to exonerate the Presidency on the corruption that has been associated with the EFCC acting chairman to dissuade ‘mischief makers’ from exploring identified gaps in the information dissemination architecture.
The brief press statement by the DSS after the forceful invitation could have been more detailed (or later updated) since the agency understands why Magu was invited. This, we believe, could have been avoided if the agency was better prepared.
Failure to devise a working information dissemination strategy can lead to negative brand perception, the likes of which the government is facing over this issue and others like it. Therefore brands must, as a matter of importance, include a communication strategy in all their execution campaigns so as to avoid a crisis.
*Hot Takes by Culture Intelligence from RED.