By Dickson Jere
To speak or not to speak? This is a question that often lingers in the minds of public officials and their handlers when faced with unfortunate bad publicity.
Usually the temptation to speak is high but handlers must always think through this aspect. Sometimes “to speak” brings more problems than silence. This is the case of RATSA and its CEO Zindaba Soko.
Firstly, the fact that the boss of road safety agency was found in that unfortunate road accident is not good publicity. In developed jurisdictions, that incident alone would have led to his resignation or indeed dismissal. But that is not the point here! I am concerned with today’s statement. RATSA handlers, if they really wanted to speak, they should have just offered an unreserved apology for the incident. Nothing more!
But alas, they decided to offer an explanation and differ with the police version of the accident. Now RATSA claims that it was driver of the bus who was at fault – a different version from that given by police. Don’t forgot that the RATSA boss has been charged based on the police version of the story. Now here is the problem… since there are two different versions, it means that the RATSA boss cannot admit guilty, pay the fine and close the case. The two versions need to go to court for determination. It is only the court which can break this impasse. This will be a total embarrassment- two government agencies differing in public!
By the way, the RATSA boss will be appearing in court for offenses which he is employed to curb. Is that logical? Whoever advised my brother Zindaba Soko to issue that statement does not like him at all. He wants to embarrass him! An apology would have been the best or at most silence!
Remember he recently admitted that he also pays speed fines – that statement again was not measured. He needs to get the team around him that can help him manage his public statements.
Good weekend friends!