On what should ordinarily be a normal Tuesday in Lagos, flames engulfed Afriland Towers on Broad Street, Lagos Island turning the somewhat nondescript commercial building into the scene of tragedy that would claim lives and ignite one of the most heated debates in Nigerian public relations circles in recent memory.
The building housed multiple tenants, including a branch of United Bank for Africa (UBA) and offices of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). By the time the fire was extinguished, several lives had been lost, families were grieving, and a bank’s corporate communications team found itself at the centre of a communications storm that would be dissected by PR professionals across the continent.
As flames consumed the structure, images and videos began circulating on social media platforms, accompanied by speculation and, inevitably, misinformation. Among the initial rumors is that UBA House, the bank’s headquarters on Marina, was ablaze. UBA’s corporate communications team moved quickly to address the confusion. Their initial statement read: “We are aware of the fire incident at a building on Broad Street, Lagos Island, which incidentally houses one of our many branches in Lagos Island. As against reports on online and social media, the affected building is not UBA House, Marina, the Bank’s head office. We have ensured the safety and well-being of our branch staff, customers and other visitors in the building.”
It was a holding statement…brief, maybe not so factual, but designed to correct misinformation while the situation was still unfolding. In crisis communication parlance, such statements are placeholders perhaps meant to buy time while fuller information is gathered. But in the court of public opinion, the statement landed with a thud. Critics argued it was tone-deaf, seemingly prioritizing corporate reputation over human lives. The phrase “we have ensured the safety and well-being of our branch staff, customers and other visitors” would become particularly contentious, given that lives had been lost in the building.
Perhaps to douse the situation, Tony Elumelu, Chairman of UBA Group and one of Africa’s most prominent business leaders took to social media the following day with a message that was strikingly different in tone: “The past few hours have been tough. We and others lost colleagues in the fire at Afriland Towers. As a community, we are grieving for all and doing what we can to support their families and loved ones.
“I also saw the initial statement from the comms team at @UBAGroup – which was put out in haste, without understanding the full gravity of what happened. This is regrettable. The statement does not reflect how deeply saddened we are. The loss of a life is painful, all the more. Our Group paused today to reflect and remember all who passed. They are irreplaceable and will remain in our memories always. May their souls rest in perfect peace and may God comfort their loved ones and us all.”
Understandably, the statement succeeded in conveying empathy and leadership, but it also did something else. It publicly called out his own communications team, describing their statement as hasty and regrettable. This move would become the subject of intense debate among PR professionals, many of whom took to LinkedIn and PR Hub, a WhatsApp Group for communications professionals in Africa, to analyze what had transpired. The debate was robust, passionate, and divided.
In Defence of UBA’s Communications Team
Several professionals defended the initial statement, arguing that context mattered. Samuel Adeyemi, a communications strategist framed it as a necessary response to immediate pressures: “imagine that as the fire incident was unfolding, the UBA Communications Lead was inundated with calls from reporters across the world, seeking confirmation on rumors circulating on social media that UBA House itself was on fire. To douse tension and set the record straight, a holding statement was immediately released its purpose being to clarify facts and manage speculation while awaiting official confirmation on the situation, particularly on casualties.”
He went further, noting the impossible position communications teams often find themselves in: “It is important to note that the Communications Lead could not and should not have announced casualties or extended condolences at that stage. That responsibility lies with the government or the medical authorities, who alone can confirm fatalities or injuries. How do you think the family of those working in FIRS would feel if they heard the news of their loved ones passing on from UBA press release?”
Dr. Jerry Adeyeri or O’Jerry Wordsmith for short, another communications expert on the group echoed this sentiment with an emphasis on the limitations of real-time information. “Can we fully establish that the UBA Comms. team were on ground as well to have as much robust information as you had? And no, I am not defending the team’s initial press release. Sometimes we communication professionals come off as though we are being super experts, but when faced with the real situation, we can only do so much ourselves.”
Another expert, O’femi Odukoya queried: “Were some of us expecting the UBA management to take full responsibility for an incident they were only a part of? The UBA is only an occupant like other businesses in the Afriland building, and as such, they could not have gotten a holistic situation report of an unfolding event.”
Awalathegreat, also an expert on the platform attempted to reconcile the two statements, suggesting they served different purposes at different stages: “On the day, there were two big issues – misinformation (UBA House is on fire) and the Afriland fire itself, where UBA is said to be on the ground floor and other subs of HH as well as tenants like FIRS. So what did UBA do? UBA used the release to address the misinformation problem and speak to the welfare of this staff in that branch.”
The Case Against: When Speed Trumps Sensitivity
On the other side of the debate were those who found the initial statement insufficient, particularly given the magnitude of the tragedy unfolding. Susan A, another expert cut through with stark clarity: “There are no consequences for poorly managed crisis. So I won’t even try to explain why I find it offensive.” She later expanded on the systemic issues at play: “There are so many things at play here: A poorly managed state emergency system, a poorly laid out city with buildings that are not properly managed, lack of basic emergency response skills by the average Nigerian. But I will focus on that thing called a statement. I have seen firsthand that some companies have solid emergency plans, including regular fire drills and communication protocols. Clear communication is crucial when lives are at stake, and the impact of mishandling it can be far-reaching.”
Babatunde Itanola was more direct about what the statement missed: “It didn’t reflect the casualties in the mishap. The situation at hand and how the bank is handling it. The reassurance to the external publics – media, customers, relevant govt agencies etc. In the era of yellow journalism, pictures and videos have taken over the internet and it is clear that some eventualities could have been incurred.”
Oritzbaba challenged the specific language used: “The statement, ‘We have ensured the safety and well-being of our branch staff, customers and other visitors in the building’ – was a big lie! What happened to something like this: ‘Our immediate priority has been the safety and well-being of all individuals present at the location, including staff, customers, and visitors. We are working closely with the relevant authorities to assess the situation and provide necessary support.’?”
Clarion Oyeronke, a PR expert offered a broader critique of crisis communication approaches: “When I read the initial statement released by Afriland’s communications team, one thing stood out to me. The focus was heavily tilted toward protecting the company’s image and explaining the sequence of events. While they expressed sympathy, the statement didn’t centre the most important reality which is human lives were lost. Crisis Communication demands more than just reporting facts. It demands empathy first, strategy second. People want to feel seen, not just informed.”
The Leadership Question: Did Tony Elumelu Get It Right?
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the entire episode was Tony Elumelu’s decision to publicly acknowledge the shortcomings of his communications team’s statement. This move split opinion sharply.
Adeyemi was unequivocal in his criticism: “What Tony did in publicly shifting blame amounted to a publicity stunt, effectively throwing his own communications team under the bus to save face. The truth is this: had the UBA comms team prematurely announced casualties or expressed condolences without confirmation, they would have landed in a much bigger crisis, likely criticized even more harshly by the same Tony and senior leadership of UBA for not getting ‘clearance’ before announcing casualties.”
Olugbenga Akinlade simply stated: “Tony got it wrong, internal statement or not.” Afrilewa attempted to find middle ground while still critiquing the approach: “My thought was that if there was a way for the Chairman to temper his rod on his comms team publicly and lean more on the empathy and soft tone he employed, he would still have achieved the same outcome. That public blow on the Comms team did something on public perception though. We know that the comms did not consider the enormity and potential of the situation before putting out such statement, but the Yoruba people say that if something can’t be tilted or put to the right and left, up or down, there’s still a place to put it. Words will still do the work. Internally, someone may still get some gbas gbos, but that part of slamming his comms team publicly has some unsavoury taste in the public mouths about the internal goings-on and culture of UBA.”
However, others saw it differently. Tolulope Olorundero, aka Tolucomms, convener of the Experiencing Public Relations Conference argued that sometimes someone must take responsibility: “Comms made a mistake. Statement may or may not have been approved by management. But public response to the statement was negative. Chairman then puts out a more humane statement – unwittingly throwing comms under the bus. Are we saying Chairman should have protected the comms team even in the face of very strong negative public response to comms’ statement? Sometimes, there has to be a fall man when issues like this arise.”
What Other Crises Teach Us
The Afriland incident doesn’t exist in isolation. Crisis communication has been tested repeatedly in recent years, with varying results that offer instructive parallels. When a Boeing 737 Max crashed in 2019, the company’s initial response was widely criticized for appearing defensive and focusing on technical details rather than addressing the human tragedy. The company’s CEO eventually acknowledged in congressional testimony that they had failed in their communications, but the damage to Boeing’s reputation had already been done. The lesson from this is that in tragedies involving loss of life, leading with humanity is imperative.
Conversely, when New Zealand experienced the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response became a textbook example of empathetic leadership. She wore a hijab as a sign of respect, spoke directly to the affected communities with genuine compassion, and took swift action on gun laws. Her communications centred on the victims and showed that leadership in crisis requires visible, compassionate engagement.
Closer to home, when the Synagogue Church building collapsed in Lagos in 2014, the response was marked by defensiveness and delay, exacerbating public anger. The initial reluctance to acknowledge the full extent of casualties created a vacuum that speculation and criticism filled rapidly. Indeed, it is evident that crises involving loss of life demand immediate, empathetic acknowledgment of human suffering, even when full details aren’t yet available. The language of care can coexist with the reality of incomplete information.
The Toll On Communication Professionals
Perhaps one of the most interesting contributions to the Afrihub Fire/UBA Response debate comes from Sola Abulu, another strategic communications consultant, who posted on LinkedIn about the precarious position of communications professionals. “The day I got delivered from the spirit of fear on the job was when I came to the realization that anytime things went wrong with a staff notification, media strategy or public response or campaign – the Comms Team always took the fall. It did not matter whether or not we were following orders or instructions or whether it was because it was what the higher ups wanted. Once there was backlash – the fingers were always pointed at the Comms Team.”
She would go on to outlined what she called the 4Cs that should guide crisis communication: context, care, control and commitment. She added, “What it also means is we have to be more careful about what we put out, how and when and be bold to express concerns about language, tone and content – and overall strategy because if things go south, it is very likely that the higher ups will take cover (as they always do).”
Also from LinkedIn, Orimolade Oluwamuyemi, Senior Business Programme Manager at Microsoft’s Africa Development Centre, created a real-time dashboard to track sentiment around the UBA response. His analysis showed the evolving nature of the conversation: “While the initial statement from UBA’s corporate communications team was somewhat vague, TOE’s intervention helped re-galvanize trust and conveyed a stronger sense of empathy. His message shifted the conversation from fear and uncertainty towards reassurance and stability.”
His conclusion echoed what many PR Hub members were grappling with: “One lesson is clear: in a crisis, silence is not neutrality, it is a message in itself. As the saying goes, ‘everything communicates; even when you are not communicating, you are communicating.’ Stakeholders look for clarity, empathy, and leadership, and delays or vague updates only create space for misinformation to thrive.”
The Timing Paradox, Reconciling The Irreconcilable
When it comes to crisis communications, the debate is always between the need for speed versus the need for accuracy and completeness. Communications teams face what might be called the “timing paradox.” It is either you act too quickly with incomplete information and risk insensitivity or wait too long for complete information and risk appearing uncaring or allowing misinformation to proliferate.
Awalathegreat articulated this tension well in the PR Hub discussion: “How do we cater for the fact that when the UBA Comms team put out that statement they were battling with mis/disinformation, lack of clarity over state of play at the Afriland building and other issues which we might not be privy to. When TOE put out his statement, which was for internal stakeholders (the next day) they seemed to have gotten clarity and assessed the situation.”
Oritzbaba attempted to synthesize these competing realities: “The truth is, in the fog of crisis, information is usually incomplete, fluid, and sometimes conflicting. Comms teams must weigh speed against accuracy and in that tension lies the real risk: communicate too early and risk vagueness or error; wait too long and risk misinformation filling the void. From that angle, UBA’s initial statement can be seen less as ‘weakness’ and more as a defensive necessity: a placeholder to establish presence in the conversation while grappling with clarity on the ground.”
What the Debate Reveals
Several themes emerged from the PR Hub conversations that go beyond the specifics of this incident. One of them is on holding statements. While holding statements are standard practice in crisis communication, they must be crafted with extreme care when human lives are at stake. The language must acknowledge the gravity of the situation without overstepping into areas where information is genuinely unavailable. A statement can be both preliminary and empathetic.
There is also the Approval Paradox. As Ifeanyichukwu Nkume observed, the initial statement put out within the first few hours of the crisis should have gotten the approval of both the Group’s leadership and the legal team as it was a crisis that involved collaboration with external stakeholders including the government. TOE’s statement afterwards was wrong and should have been put differently without seemingly throwing the comms team under the bus for a communication that should have gotten his approval.”
Then, there is the Leadership Visibility Imperative. In major crises, particularly those involving loss of life, stakeholders expect to hear from the most senior leadership. Elumelu’s statement, whatever its flaws in execution, recognized this expectation. As Babatunde noted, “It speaks to leadership in crisis and taking responsibility as at when due.”
There is also the Social Media Amplification Effect. The Afriland incident played out in real-time on social media, with images and videos shaping public perception faster than any corporate statement could. As Anthony Elikene another expert observed, “In the era of yellow journalism, pictures and videos have taken over the internet and it is clear that some eventualities could have been incurred.”
The Unanswered Questions
Despite the robust debate, several questions remain unresolved: Should holding statements be avoided entirely in tragedies involving confirmed or suspected loss of life? If so, what replaces them when misinformation is spreading rapidly? What is the appropriate chain of approval for crisis communications, and how do organizations balance the need for senior oversight with the need for speed? When a corporate statement receives backlash, how should leadership respond without undermining their communications team? Is there a meaningful difference between internal and external crisis communications in an age when anything can and will be shared publicly?
Preparing for the Inevitable
What happened at Afriland Towers was a tragedy first and a communications challenge second. Lives were lost, families were devastated, and a community was shaken. As Orimolade Oluwamuyemi asked in his LinkedIn reflection: “What do you think matters most in a crisis response: speed, empathy, or detail?”
The answer, perhaps, is that we need all three, but if forced to choose, empathy must come first. Because in the end, crises are about people, about their safety, their grief, their need to know that someone cares. Everything else is commentary.
The Afriland Towers fire and its communicative aftermath offer no simple lessons, no perfect playbook that would have satisfied all stakeholders. What they do offer is a reminder that crisis communication remains as much art as science that requires judgment, empathy, and courage in equal measure.
Organizations would do well to recognize several realities, one of which crises are inevitable. No amount of prevention eliminates the possibility of tragedy. What matters is preparation. This includes not just having crisis communication plans, but regularly testing and updating them. As Susan A noted in the PR Hub discussion, some companies conduct regular fire drills and maintain clear communication protocols involving comms, HR, and legal teams working together.
Organizations must build empathy into their institutional DNA, to ensure that care for human welfare is the default setting, not an afterthought. Also, speed and thoughtfulness can coexist. It’s possible to respond quickly while still centering humanity. Simple phrases like “Our thoughts are with all those affected” or “We are working to understand the full extent of this tragedy” show gravity without overstepping into areas where information is incomplete.
May the souls of all those lost in the Afriland Towers fire rest in peace. And may their tragedy teach us to do better when crisis inevitably comes again.