|
PR ANALYSIS OF FANI-KAYODE'S
REJOINDER TO UMAR
By
Yushau A. Shuaib
“As long as I remain in this government, I will reply
him fire for fire” Femi Fani-Kayode
Fire for fire has no place in public relations
practice just as fire brigade approach to public
issues. This piece is not intended in whatever way to
join the debate in the media war between Colonel
Abubakar Dangiwa Umar, a retired military officer and
Lawyer Femi Kayode, Special Assistant to the President
on Public Affairs. It is a PR analysis of the
contribution of an officer responsible for public
affairs as epitomized in public relations practice.
Though in the Code of Ethics of Nigerian Institute of
Public Relations (NIPR), it is recognized that each
person has the right to reach his own judgement and in
doing that he should respect the right of parties in a
dispute to explain their respective points of view.
Col. Umar received tremendous spotlights in the media
by virtue of his past activities as a military
governor and activist while Fani Kayode came to
limelight by his past critical views and for being a
son of prominent politician in the First Republic. Let
me admit from the outset that President Olusegun
Obasanjo is a man who appreciates constructive
criticism laced with fact and data and cannot be
easily cowed by harassment and intimidation. Therefore
the immediate response of his aide on public affairs,
which generated a lot of furore, need to be critically
examined from the professional angle.
Public affairs as a unique aspect of public
relations, is employed to establish goodwill and
maintain mutual and beneficial relationship between an
individual or an entity with its entire publics.
The
publics are therefore in the best position to assess
and judge the impact of a message from the messenger
whether it receives goodwill or ill feeling.
Since Col. Umar is a retired military man who may not
be trained or assigned the responsibility for image
laundering, I am constrained to comment on his Open
Letter. But since Barrister Fani-Kayode is presently
an image-maker of the government, this review is to
examine his rejoinder whether it meets ethical and
professional standard. It would not delve on the
private and personal life of the SA, especially on the
alleged escapades with a lady who threatened the life
of Thisday Editor, Mr. Segun Adeniyi.
In the lengthy article by the Special Assistant to
President on Public Affairs, one may observe the use
and misuse of high-sounding derogatory remarks such as
‘pathological liar, treachery, ingratitude,
destructive fake, suffer form of delusions of grandeur
and misguided sense of self-importance. These are not
appropriate words to clear policy issues as they are
against the Code of Ethics of International Public
Relations Association (IPRA), which says a PR person
‘shall not employ method tending to be derogatory of
others.’ It is only in propaganda, an instrument of
defending the indefensible that one can exercise the
right to distract and intimidate others to total
submission.
The rejoinder also tends to join others with the
petitioner in total condemnation, though without
mentioning names. Mr. Fani Kayode referred to a former
military leader, whom many thought is in the good book
of the President in unfavorable terms. He mentioned
that Col Umar “continues to manifest an inexplicably
high degree of love and intimacy for the man that
annulled June 12 and brought democracy to a halt,
adding that it is the kind of affection that only a
dutiful wife should have for her husband. He goes on
to point out that, that is the obvious moral
degeneration that Umar has now been afflicted with.”
Those phrases to rational public may indicate that the
retired military officer is either not married or
involved in stunning and satanic intimacy with a man.
Though such impression is disgusting, morally and
spiritually objectionable. The Public Relations
Society of America (PRSA) warns an officer from using
any manipulative methods or techniques designed to
create subconscious motivations which the individual
cannot control of his own free will.
The media attack could not spare the suspected mentor
and the petitioner over public misconduct, where the
Public Affairs manager queried a donation of $5million
USD by the said military leader to Col Umar to start
his ostrich farm as whether the amount is not from
those looted from Nigerian treasuries. He pointed out
that Col. Umar could be counted as one of the
principal beneficiaries of the rampant corruption that
took place between 1985 and 1993. Professionally, it
is unfair and unjust to join a person and group in
official rebuttal when they are not involved in the
petition.
Other disclosures, which are irrelevant to national
discourse, were dropped in espionage bombshells. In
fact from the revelation in the article, Gen. Abacha
received good mention when the writer states that “
despite his (Umar) nuisance, Abacha did not lock up
Abubakar Umar or, at worst, have him eliminated.” One
start to wonder whether Abacha is not glowingly
portrayed as a responsible and compassionate leader
who rather than react negatively to perceived enemies
he remained focused to avoid distraction.
The publicist seems to foreclose some personalities
that may not be relevant even in 2007 when he said
that “he (Umar) and the small group that he holds
brief for, will never smell power in Nigeria again” It
is not difficult to suggest those categories of
personalities from the proceeding outburst.
But surprisingly towards the end of the write-up, the
writer was more professional as he states the obvious,
that “as regards the specific issues raised by Umar in
his open letter, we shall, at appropriate time, answer
them point by point with facts and figures and not
with sentiment and emotion.” It is expected that the
rejoinder should have addressed the specifics instead
of being temperamental. Since public relations is
about goodwill and friendly humour, the rejoinder has
a plus where it narrated the past existing rapport
between the President and Col Umar with the latter
taking the former to even peppersoup party at Chief
Audu Ogbe’s house in a cordial affinity. Such humours
are useful if only to retain friendship and
brotherhood.
As there were recapitulations on inexplicable love to
somebody so also is on the allegation of Umar looking
for contracts and for appointment as chairman of a
government agency. The most unfathomable is the way
the lawyer rained a big curse from the Book of
Proverbs where he said “‘He who repays good with evil
shall never leave his household’ And so it shall be
for this ungrateful, bitter and vengeful soul who goes
by the name of Abubakar Umar”
The Special Assistant should have been advised to
update himself and broaden his scope of knowledge on
the rudiments of public affairs’ practice. It may not
be too late to learn the code of conduct and
professional ethics of public relations even though he
declared that “I am not the least bit concerned by
what Umar or anyone else says or writes about me as
long as I am doing my job . . . it is certainly not
for Umar or anyone else to tell me how to do it.” Even
as a lawyer, there are sanctions for flouting strict
rules of professional bodies and regulatory authority.
A successful publicist is not judged by power of
oratory, expensive regalia and appearance with
bodyguards, but by his ability to analyze critically
with inquiring mind and sound editorial judgement.
Amiability, humility and openness to criticisms, are
not weakness but attributes of a good listener with a
mission.
The impression that Umar may not appreciate the
biblical concepts because he is a Muslim is like
playing religious sentiments. You don’t need to be a
follower of particular religion before you appreciate
their faith. Other Muslims who overwhelmingly support
the President may feel unease with that intuition from
the spokesperson. As a believer, Mr. Kayode should not
have restricted his argument with quotations from the
Bible but with the Koran too since his rival, a Muslim
substantiated his argument from the two holy books.
Balance and objectivity are desirable in healthy
debate.
It is regrettable that the style and approach adopted
by Mr. Kayode are unprofessional, diversionary and so
cheap that may impact negatively on the image of other
public affairs officers and the profession.
Professional values according to PRSA provide
foundation for Members’ Code of the Ethics and set the
industry standard for the professional practice. These
values are fundamental beliefs that guide on behaviors
and decision-making process. The professional values
are vital to the integrity of the individual and
profession a whole.
The Senior Special Assistant to the President (Media)
Mrs. Remi Oyo and even the sacked Villa Publicity
Aides Garba Shehu and Dr. Stanley Makebu, could not
exhibit that level of immaturity in handling public
discourse. Had it been Barrister Fani-Kayode is
assigned the portfolio of Special Assistant on Legal
Affairs by his academic qualification or Special
Adviser on Perceived Political Enemies by his present
skill, those of us in PR profession would not have
bothered. The British Institute of Public Relations
(IPR), in its Code of Professional Conduct advises
spokespersons to have positive duty at all times as to
respect the truth and avoid disseminating misleading
information knowingly or recklessly which may
frequently occur inadvertently.
But it is not late for the officer to learn from
others or be tutored on Ethics of the profession from
Nigerian Institute of Public Relations or similar
professional bodies to polish himself and the image of
our dear President. The profession that does not
require qualification and experience is
propaganda…real propaganda to hoodwink gullible
publics.
Yushau A. Shuaib (Member NIPR, IPR, PRSA and IPRA)
Author of textbooks on Financial Public Relations and
Writing for the Media
Wuye Estate, Abuja
March 2004
|