By: Raymond Baxey, APR
In the theatre of public governance, optics can shape public confidence in institutions and, ultimately, their legitimacy. This reality came into sharp focus following the recent working visits by the Chief Justice, His Lordship Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to selected State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
The purpose of his working visit appeared straightforward: to gain first-hand insight into their operations and performance. His commendations of institutional growth and spontaneous reflections on the management of public resources suggested a genuine interest in accountability and national development.
Yet, when some of his remarks became public, they triggered a wider debate about the perceived political neutrality of the Judiciary. Civil society organisations and political actors interpreted the comments differently, with some arguing that comparisons of institutional performance over different periods risked affecting perceptions of judicial impartiality.
Amid the political debate, however, an important issue has received far less attention: the strategic role of public relations (PR) in helping senior public officials navigate a sensitive communication environment.
The episode offers a useful case study, not necessarily of political intent, but of the broader communication challenges confronting public institutions. It raises a fundamental question: Are PR professionals being given a sufficiently strategic role to help institutional leaders anticipate the public consequences of their words and actions?
There is a tendency in some public institutions to view the Public Relations Officer (PRO) primarily as a media contact, event coordinator, speechwriter or producer of press releases. Yet, the demands of strategic public relations extend well beyond these functions.
By the very nature of the profession, the PRO should, in practice, function as an ex-officio Personal Assistant (PA) to the Head of Institution on matters of public communication. This does not make the PRO a literal administrative PA; rather, it reflects the proximity and access required to provide timely, informed PR counsel to the Head.
That counsel should not be confined to Management meetings. While the PRO has an important role in advising Management on institutional policies, programmes, stakeholder concerns and reputational risks, the professional must also have direct access to the Head of Institution.
This proximity matters because the Head’s words, movements and public engagements can have immediate implications for the institution’s reputation. The PRO should understand where the Head is going, the nature of the engagement, the likely audiences and the communication sensitivities involved.
The PRO is therefore not simply the person who manages the cameras or writes the press release after an event. The professional should provide counsel before an engagement, remain alert to emerging communication risks during it and help provide context where necessary afterwards.
The Chief Justice’s SOE visits raise questions that should concern public institutions more broadly. Was the communications team involved in planning the engagements? Was the political and media environment assessed beforehand? Were potential sensitivities identified? Were appropriate talking points or communication guidelines prepared?
These questions are not about controlling what leaders say; they concern communication preparedness.
Where an engagement involves politically sensitive issues, PR professionals can help leadership maintain focus on institutional mandates, accountability and national development while avoiding language that could inadvertently be interpreted as partisan.
No communication plan, however, can anticipate every spontaneous comment. Leaders will naturally respond to what they encounter during field engagements. That is precisely why the PRO’s proximity to the Head is important: timely professional counsel can help navigate unexpected communication challenges without compromising the purpose of the engagement.
Two important principles of strategic public relations are environmental scanning and boundary spanning.
Environmental scanning requires PR professionals to monitor the social, political and media environment and identify issues likely to attract heightened public sensitivity.
In Ghana’s politically charged environment, comparisons of institutional performance across different administrations can quickly become politically contentious, irrespective of the speaker’s intention. A statement intended to promote accountability may therefore be interpreted through a partisan lens.
The PR professional’s responsibility is not to prevent leaders from addressing difficult issues, but to alert them to the communication implications of particular words, contexts and audiences.
Boundary spanning complements this function by connecting institutional leadership with the external environment. The PR professional gathers stakeholder information, identifies emerging concerns and helps translate institutional priorities into messages that external audiences can properly understand.
For a constitutional institution such as the Judiciary, this function is especially important. The objective is not to manufacture neutrality but to ensure that public communication remains consistent with the institution’s constitutional mandate and does not unnecessarily undermine confidence in its independence.
The controversy also highlights the difference between reactive and strategic public relations.
A clarification after public criticism may be necessary, but it comes after competing interpretations have already gained traction. Strategic PR begins earlier by identifying communication risks, preparing leadership, understanding stakeholders and establishing mechanisms for timely response.
The Judicial Service’s clarification was therefore an important response to the controversy. The broader lesson, however, is how institutions can anticipate similar situations rather than continually responding to them after they occur.
The Chief Justice’s SOE visits should prompt state agencies, ministries and other constitutional institutions to reconsider how they position public relations within their leadership structures.
PR should not be treated as a peripheral function concerned mainly with publicity and media coverage. At the highest levels of public administration, communication is part of institutional leadership.
PR professionals must consequently be given meaningful access to strategic decision-making, while also demonstrating expertise in issues management, stakeholder analysis, environmental scanning and reputation management.
The Chief Justice’s tour may ultimately be remembered for the controversy surrounding some of his remarks. But the more enduring lesson is broader: in public leadership, good intentions do not always determine public interpretation. Strategic public relations helps bridge that gap.
For institutions whose authority depends heavily on public confidence, placing PR professionals at the strategic table and giving them direct access to the Head is not about shielding leaders from scrutiny. It is about helping them communicate effectively, anticipate risks and preserve institutional credibility.
The writer is a communications and PR professional at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC). E-mail: [email protected]
