A quiet day off has led to an unexpected “epiphany” as I followed the matter between the Office of the Special Prosecutor and Martin Kpebu and the unfolding brouhaha (because I teach a course, Public Relations, Law, and Ethics).
My take is simple.
This is not only about law, but also about institutional voice. Through its Director for Strategy, Research and Communication (such an interesting job title), the OSP carries responsibility for how it is understood, judged, and trusted. That responsibility extends beyond speaking. It includes shaping confidence and protecting credibility.
Yet even when the law is right, something else often determines whether it is accepted, optics.
Yes, good old optics, the cost nobody budgets for, yet everyone pays for. Optics is the space between being right and being believed. You may win on paper and still lose the public. And once trust has gone, no memo brings it back.
This is where confusion usually begins. Not with what is said, but with who is doing the saying and how they do this.
That raises a difficult question: are square pegs being forced into round holes? Are we assuming that articulation alone qualifies one to manage public engagements?
Naturally, many people communicate well, and some perform even more impressively as spokespersons with no PR training. Yet fluency is not communication management. Perhaps this is why some C-suite members still invest in PR training. In practice, the Law answers “can we,” PR answers “how will it land,” and Ethics answers “should we.” Though these three often operate alongside one another, they do not perform the same labour. When one is stretched to carry another’s weight, performance weakens, and consequences follow.
What the law permits does not automatically protect trust. This matters most once pressure enters the room, when institutions must not only act correctly, but also communicate effectively and at speed.
Public anger now moves faster than institutional response, as digital media escalates disputes before formal processes can catch up. This means functions like stakeholder management and sentiment tracking are no longer optional, but essential to institutional survival.
What began with two actors has now drawn in the Military, the Police, and even Parliament, driven largely by interpretation and by what was said, not said, done, or delayed, depending on where one stands. This is how “small” disagreements grow into national conversations.
At that point, the issue no longer belongs to the venerable Martin Kpebu nor the OSP. It begins to resemble a professional design problem.
Perhaps not who speaks, but from which discipline.
Perhaps not volume, but judgement.
Perhaps not confidence, but consequence.
And no, these are not conclusions carved in stone. Who am I anyway? Just someone who teaches PR, offering two cents.
–
Author: Osafo Wiredu E.
[0570817013/0552373956]
Strategic Communications Consultant
Academic Communications
About the Author
