The recent decision to sideline the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State (BCOS) during His Excellency’s media chat may appear, at first glance, to be a minor programming or logistical choice. But beneath the surface, this action raises serious questions about institutional health, governance priorities, and the role of public media in democratic accountability.
This is not merely an issue of optics or sentiment. It is a symptom of deeper structural problems within government institutions—problems that, if left unaddressed, risk weakening public trust, undermining policy communication, and eroding the very systems designed to serve the people.
In a democracy, government-owned media is not ornamental. It exists to amplify public policy, ensure access to information, and act as a bridge between leadership and citizens. When such an institution is bypassed at a moment as significant as a gubernatorial media engagement, the message—intentional or not—is unmistakable: something within the system is not working.
BCOS and the Role of Public Broadcasting in Governance
Public broadcasting institutions like BCOS were established to serve a clear purpose:
To provide universal access to government information
To reflect local realities and languages
To act as a trusted platform for public accountability
Across Nigeria and globally, government-owned broadcast stations remain central to crisis communication, policy explanation, civic education, and grassroots engagement. In times of reform, they should be strengthened, modernized, and prioritized, not relegated to the margins.
When a state government chooses alternative platforms while excluding its own broadcast institution, it raises unavoidable questions:
Is the institution technically incapable?
Is it administratively weakened?
Or has it suffered from years of neglect, poor leadership, or internal compromise?
None of these possibilities reflect well on the system—and all demand urgent attention.
Beyond BCOS: A Mirror to Wider Institutional Challenges
The BCOS situation is not isolated. It reflects a broader pattern visible across several Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs)—a pattern of institutional fatigue, weak internal accountability, and ineffective reporting structures.
Many MDAs today operate under significant strain:
Obsolete operational frameworks
Poor inter-departmental coordination
Weak performance evaluation systems
Leadership gaps that prioritize survival over excellence
However, one critical truth must be stated clearly: a Governor can only act on what he knows.
No chief executive—no matter how proactive—can fix problems that are concealed, diluted, or deliberately misrepresented. When heads of MDAs choose silence over honesty, or loyalty over competence, they do not protect the government; they sabotage it from within.
The Cost of Silence and Internal Compromise
One of the most damaging cultures in public administration is the normalization of silence. Silence in the face of decay. Silence in the face of inefficiency. Silence in the face of compromised standards.
When internal challenges are hidden:
Small failures become systemic breakdowns
Inefficiencies become normalized
Corruption finds space to grow quietly
This culture does not just weaken institutions—it disconnects leadership from reality. It creates an illusion of stability while rot spreads underneath.
For public institutions to function effectively, honest upward communication is non-negotiable. Heads of MDAs must:
Report challenges truthfully
Escalate operational failures promptly
Resist the temptation to “manage impressions”
Governance is not a public relations exercise; it is a problem-solving responsibility.
Due Process, Procurement, and the Red Flags We Can’t Ignore
One of the most sensitive areas requiring immediate scrutiny is due process and procurement. Across Nigeria, procurement inefficiencies remain a major source of waste, public distrust, and institutional decay.
When procurement systems are weak:
Projects are inflated or abandoned
Contracts are poorly executed
Value for money disappears
Public confidence erodes
The office responsible for due process oversight must therefore rise beyond routine approvals and begin asking harder questions. This moment calls for:
Independent audits of selected MDAs
Process reviews of ongoing contracts
Compliance checks against procurement laws
Transparent publication of findings
Audits are not acts of hostility. They are tools of institutional hygiene. Any system that fears scrutiny is already compromised.
Why This Is Not an Attack on the Government
It is important to be clear: calling for reform is not an attack on leadership. On the contrary, it is an act of loyalty to governance itself.
Strong administrations are not defined by the absence of criticism but by their capacity to correct course. The most respected governments globally are those that:
Identify institutional weaknesses early
Empower reform-minded officials
Clean up failing structures decisively
Strengthening BCOS, reforming MDAs, and tightening procurement processes do not diminish the government’s achievements. They protect them.
The Danger of Ignoring Public Institutions
When government institutions are consistently sidelined:
Citizens lose trust in official channels
Rumors and misinformation thrive
Informal platforms dominate public discourse
This is especially dangerous in an era of digital misinformation, where unverified narratives travel faster than facts. A strong, credible public broadcaster is one of the most effective tools against this threat.
BCOS should not just exist—it should lead:
Lead in policy communication
Lead in civic education
Lead in public engagement
Anything less is a waste of public investment.
A Call for Introspection, Not Defensiveness
This moment should not provoke defensiveness or denial. It should provoke introspection.
Key questions must be asked honestly:
Why was BCOS not positioned as the primary channel?
What institutional weaknesses led to this outcome?
Who is accountable for the current state of affairs?
What reforms are immediately necessary?
Answering these questions openly is the first step toward rebuilding confidence—both internally and with the public.
The Path Forward: What Must Be Done
To move forward constructively, several actions are essential:
1. Institutional Audit of BCOS
A comprehensive technical, administrative, and editorial audit to determine:
Capacity gaps
Equipment needs
Staff training requirements
Leadership effectiveness
2. Performance Review of MDAs
Not ceremonial reviews, but data-driven performance assessments tied to service delivery and transparency.
3. Strengthened Due Process Oversight
Regular, independent audits with publicly accessible summaries to reinforce accountability.
4. Culture Reset in Public Service
Reward honesty, competence, and innovation—not silence and loyalty to dysfunction.
Conclusion: Governance Is Only as Strong as Its Institutions
Governance does not live in speeches or media chats. It lives in institutions—how they function, communicate, and serve the people.
When a government sidelines its own voice, it is not just a programming choice; it is a warning signal. One that should not be ignored.
Strengthening BCOS and reforming struggling MDAs is not about assigning blame. It is about building systems that outlive administrations, earn public trust, and give meaning to democratic leadership.
If governance is to be truly inclusive, transparent, and effective, then public institutions must never be treated as an afterthought. They are the voice of the people—and that voice must be heard.
0 Comments