John Baimba Sesay
Recent developments in Falaba District involving our military and Guinean forces, which reportedly led to the arrest of our men in uniform, require deliberate, strategic communication, not reactive, knee-jerk, fire-brigade or propaganda-driven responses such as we witnessed during Tuesday’s media engagement by a State House staffer.
Moments of national security demand more than commentary; they require structure. There must be absolute clarity on who speaks for government, under what authority, and based on which verified briefings. Security-related communication is not casual media engagement, rather, it is a calibrated extension of national security architecture. Poorly framed statements can inadvertently project weakness, inconsistency, or confusion, with diplomatic consequences.
The circulation of images and videos of our men in uniform is unacceptable. Yet while the situation itself is regrettable, our communication must not deepen the damage. Emotional, fragmented or competitive messaging only compounds national vulnerability.
This is not political communication. It is not partisan messaging. It is strategic state communication. And strategic communication requires professionals, individuals trained to assess risk, manage tone, anticipate geopolitical implications, and align messaging with defence, foreign affairs, and intelligence structures. It does not require a professionally trained nurse.
There must therefore be a clear central command for public messaging. The Ministry of Information should take primacy, serving as the coordinating hub through which all official statements are developed, cleared, and disseminated. Professional communicators whether embedded within the Ministry or operating through its authority should prepare structured briefing notes, approved talking points, and scenario guidance before any public engagement occurs. Consistency, discipline and alignment are non-negotiable.
In sensitive situations, visibility is not the objective. precision is. Often, the most effective communicators are not those seen on air, but those working quietly behind the scenes: refining language, advising principals, stress-testing narratives, and ensuring that the right technical officials, not the loudest voices, lead public engagement.
In matters of national security, communication is not an afterthought. It is strategy. And it must be treated with the same discipline and professionalism as operations on the ground.