PR SHOTS (69): When narrative becomes additional casualty
One of the most dangerous moments in any security crisis is when governments begin to lose control of the narrative.
The latest controversy surrounding the death of retired Gen. Rabe has once again exposed a troubling dimension about the growing credibility gap between official communication and public perception.
Initial statements from the Katsina State Government attributed the General's death to health-related complications. Diabetes and high blood pressure were particularly mentioned. Ordinarily, such an explanation would have attracted little scrutiny.
However, subsequent reports suggesting that his death may have been due to complications arising from an earlier snake bite have inevitably raised questions about the state government's communication instincts.
It is not whether the official statement was technically accurate. The issue is whether citizens believe it. And in public communication, belief is often more consequential than intent.
This is the challenge facing many governments confronting prolonged insecurity. Every communication decision is interpreted through the lens of accumulated trust. Or accumulated distrust. Once credibility begins to erode, even truthful statements struggle to gain acceptance. Every clarification appears defensive, while explanation sounds evasive. Even denial invites further suspicion.
The result is a vicious cycle in which the state becomes trapped by its own credibility deficit.
Katsina's predicament is particularly significant because it exists within a broader context. This is the same state where the governor publicly acknowledged that highly placed officials were allegedly leaking sensitive security information to criminal elements. Such a revelation, regardless of its intent, fundamentally alters public perception. If insiders are indeed aiding non-state actors, citizens are left to question state legitimacy.
Security challenges become exponentially more difficult to manage when citizens begin to suspect that elements within the system may be compromised. In such circumstances, every setback is interpreted as evidence of institutional weakness or divided loyalties.
The deeper concern, however, extends beyond communication failures. What citizens increasingly observe is a pattern that appears to reward criminality while penalizing law-abiding communities. Discussions around prisoner exchanges, ransom negotiations, reintegration programmes, and various forms of accommodation may be driven by pragmatic security considerations. But from the perspective of ordinary citizens, they create a troubling impression that the state is negotiating from a position of weakness rather than strength.
This perception matters.
Public confidence in security institutions depends largely on their ability to project a firm resolve. When bandits continue to expand their operations and boundaries, communities continue to suffer displacement, and governments appear increasingly willing to explore concessions, citizens naturally begin to wonder whether the strategic objective is victory, containment, or coexistence.
That uncertainty is itself a security risk.
The greatest asset of any government confronting insurgency, banditry, or organized criminal violence is public trust. Citizens must believe that the state possesses the will, capacity, and determination to prevail. Once that confidence begins to crack, criminals gain more than territory, and would appropriate psychological advantage.
The tragedy of the current moment is that the conversation is no longer focused solely on the actions of bandits. Increasingly, it is focused on the actions, communications, and credibility of those entrusted with defeating them. This should concern policymakers. Bandits thrive where state authority is weak. But more disturbing, they flourish where state credibility is questioned.
Ultimately, the death of Gen. Rabe has become a case study in a larger governance challenge about the widening gap between official narratives and public belief.
The first casualty of insecurity is often human life. The second is public trust. The moment a government loses both, restoring either becomes more difficult.
#prshots