Across administrations and across levels of government over many, many years, the following familiar pattern has persisted:
1. Policies are announced.
2. Citizens react with some confusion or suspicion because the policy announcement is just that: an announcement, without enough details on its content and likely impact on the people
3. Officials scramble to explain after the fact, and
4. public discourse degenerates into defensive exchanges between ill prepared government spokespersons and critics.
5. Opposition occupies the void and wreaks havoc on government
What emerges is a REACTIVE communication environment rather than a STRATEGIC one.
And this is precisely the problem.
The issue is not merely poor messaging; it is the absence of a coherent national framework for public communication. Nigeria still operates largely within an outdated paradigm of “INFORMATION MANAGEMENT” a concept inherited from an earlier bureaucratic era when governments saw their role primarily as disseminating information, not strategically managing communication. By the way, we inherited this when what is today the Ministry of Information started as the PR arm of pre- and post-colonial governance.
But governance in the twenty-first century requires something fundamentally different. It requires EFFECTIVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. “Information” is passé! And public communication cannot function effectively without a clear and deliberate National Public Communication Policy.
FROM INFORMATION TO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
For decades, government communication in Nigeria has been organised around ministries and agencies responsible for “information.” The underlying assumption has been that government simply needs to inform citizens about its actions. In fairness, over time some efforts have been made to marginally improve on this. Only marginally.
But global modern governance theory shows that this model is inadequate.
Communication scholars such as James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt have long argued that effective public communication requires two-way engagement between institutions and publics, not merely one-directional information flow. Similarly, policy communication research emphasises that public understanding of policy is not automatic. Policies must be interpreted, contextualised, and explained in ways that allow citizens to understand both intent and impact. Without such interpretation, the policy vacuum is quickly filled by speculation, misinformation, and partisan narratives, such as when fuel subsidy was summarily removed without months of communicating this and the likely effects to the people. We are still managing the fallout. What this does is that government is unfortunately presented as uncaring, even when it means well.
This is precisely what happens in Nigeria.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF POLICY WITHOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
When public communication is not structured around a national framework, several problems inevitably arise.
1. Policy narratives become fragmented. Different officials provide conflicting explanations of the same policy.
2. Government communication becomes reactive rather than proactive, responding to controversies instead of shaping public understanding.
3. Public officials who appear in international media often do so without strategic guidance, relying on personal interpretation rather than institutional communication frameworks.
A recent international media interview involving a Nigerian official illustrates this challenge clearly. When a spokesperson speaks without reference to a coherent national communication policy, their messaging often appears inconsistent or incoherent.
The problem may not necessarily be the individual spokesperson. The problem is that no formal policy exists to guide how the nation communicates with itself and with the world.
LESSONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Countries that manage public communication effectively do so because they treat communication as a strategic component of governance, not as an afterthought. Consider a few examples:
THE UNITED KINGDOM
The UK operates a highly structured system known as the Government Communication Service (GCS). The GCS operates under a formal communication strategy that guides how government departments communicate policies, manage crises, and maintain consistency across ministries. Every communication campaign, from public health messaging to economic policy, is aligned with a central communication framework. This ensures coherence. This happens only because the government is working from a sound public communication policy and strategy.
SINGAPORE
Singapore offers another example of communication embedded in governance. The government maintains a strong central communication apparatus through institutions such as the Ministry of Communications and Information. Policy communication in Singapore is deliberately designed to ensure that citizens understand not only what the government is doing but why policies are necessary. Major reforms are often preceded by sustained public communication campaigns explaining both rationale and expected outcomes. The result is a population that is generally better informed about policy direction.
CANADA
In Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat oversees a comprehensive Policy on Communications and Federal Identity. This policy governs how federal institutions communicate with the public, ensuring transparency, consistency, and accessibility. Every ministry must align its communication activities with this overarching policy framework.
WHY NIGERIA MUST BEGIN WITH POLICY
Nigeria’s communication challenge cannot be solved merely by appointing Ministers, Commissioners, Senior Special Advisers, Special Advisers, Assistants etc., or increasing media appearances. And there is no point in appointing a minister or commissioner of information without arming them with knowledge of the policy and the strategy.
So, we must begin with policy architecture: A National Public Communication Policy that would:
1. Define the principles of government communication
2. Establish clear institutional responsibility for public communication
3. Provide guidelines for policy messaging
4. Ensure coordination across federal, state, and local governments
5. Develop protocols for crisis communication
6. Integrate communication with national reputation and branding
Without such a policy, communication efforts will remain fragmented and inconsistent. And ineffective.
