The Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) has revealed it came under intense pressure to immediately condemn the controversial Al Jazeera interview granted by presidential media aide Daniel Bwala, but chose to hold back in defence of professional standards.
At its first quarter induction ceremony in Abuja, NIPR President Dr Ike Neliaku said the institute resisted calls from influential Nigerians who demanded an instant reaction after the interview aired.
He said, “When that Daniel Bwala interview broke, so many highly placed people called me from different parts of this country because they were very concerned. They asked me if NIPR is not going to say anything about it?
“But I told each of them, and if they are listening to me, they will confirm it, that the NIPR is not a civil society organisation nor a union. It is an institute.”
Rather than issuing what he described as an emotionally driven response, the institute opted for a deliberate, research-based assessment in line with its mandate.
“What that means is that whatever we are doing must be scientific. It must not be based on emotion because in our clime, emotion rules logic. Once you do something, you are first of all judged from the perception of emotion instead of how it makes sense or how it doesn’t make sense.
“So we refrain from every statement whatsoever until we subject it to a scientific study.”
Neliaku explained that the institute’s eventual position was informed by an independent review conducted by GASKI NG Accountability Series, which analysed the interview through established persuasion frameworks.
According to him, the report identified credibility as the weakest point in the communication, undermining the effectiveness of the message despite a relatively structured argument.
“First is the issue of credibility and that is ethos. This emerged as the weakest link because the messenger could be as good as the message. If the message is strong and the messenger is weak, the messenger will corrupt the message.
“As a result of that, people will not likely listen to even the message of the messenger because credibility goes before content. It is who you are that will speak for you even before you come into the room. That’s why we talk about reputation,” he stated.
He noted that while the argument itself showed some strength, it was not sufficient to overcome public scepticism.
“That’s why we say that reputation is a core asset. Don’t joke with it. So in the era of credibility, our friend scored a very weak mark. Then we come to the second part, which is the strength of the argument. In other words, the logos. And Bwala performed slightly better. Those who watched it would see that in terms of argument, he made his case,” he said.
Neliaku further observed that audience reactions revealed limited persuasive success, despite the visibility of the platform.
“That’s what you must learn. When the fact is weak and your logic is excellent, it will not be very difficult to be punctured. So the performance was very engaging, yet the impact was limited. In today’s media environment, visibility is not victory.
“Eloquence without credibility is a fragile asset, because it will not take time for it to be punctured. If you make a mistake, admit it immediately,” he urged.
Also speaking, Ismaila Isah reminded practitioners of their ethical obligations, cautioning against unprofessional conduct in the line of duty.
He said, “You must not disparage the people who are employers or your colleagues in the course of working in the place. As PR people we must exemplify the best conduct because that’s what our ethics expect of us.
“I want to once again congratulate our new members and to say that your journey in the industry has just begun and is going to be a success.”
The interview has continued to stir debate nationwide, with critics questioning both the tone and effectiveness of the presidential aide’s media engagement.
