When the rejoinder becomes the story, who is telling Ekiti’s tourism story

By Ganiyu Olowu

There is a moment in every public disagreement when explanation stops clarifying the issue and begins to become the issue itself. That moment may have arrived in the responses and counter responses of the Director General of the Ekiti State Bureau of Tourism, Mr. Wale Ojo-Lanre on his venom against Glocient Hospitality Limited and Ikogosi Warm Springs Resort, in a video which has since gone viral.

The late communication scholar James E. Grunig devoted much of his work to the importance of relationships between organisations and their publics. His work reminds practitioners that public relations is not simply about managing messages but about building relationships and trust. That distinction is worth recalling at a time when the conversation around Ekiti tourism appears increasingly focused on exchanges and rejoinders rather than on tourism development itself.

The facts are already on public record. During his stewardship report before the Ekiti State House of Assembly, the Director-General of the Bureau, Mr Wale Ojo-Lanre, responded to a question about Ikogosi Warm Springs Resort and the need for greater support for its development. In substance, he suggested that the company operating the concession was not doing enough to support the Bureau’s efforts in promoting tourism. Since then, the public has witnessed a series of responses and counter-responses.
No one should question the right of a public officer to clarify his position. Indeed, public accountability requires openness. The question, however, is whether the continuing exchange is helping to advance the Bureau’s mandate or merely prolonging a disagreement.

A government appointee speaks not only as an individual but also as the representative of an institution. Investors, tourism operators and members of the public can reasonably interpret such comments as reflecting the position of the institution. That reality imposes a higher burden of judgement. Effective public communication is not measured by the ability to answer every criticism, but by the ability to determine when a response advances the institution and when it simply keeps an argument alive.
The first issue is relevance. The question before the Assembly concerned the Bureau’s responsibilities and what it is doing to develop tourism in Ekiti, particularly around one of the state’s most recognised attractions. Yet much of the subsequent discussion has revolved around sponsorship requests, Akwaaba participation and correspondence between the Bureau and Glocient. Those details may be important in understanding the relationship between both parties, but they do not fully answer the larger question of what the Bureau is doing to promote and develop tourism.
A second concern is the message such disputes send to private investors. Businesses are more willing to engage with government when they believe discussions, disagreements and negotiations will remain within appropriate institutional channels. Government has every right to demand accountability and cooperation from investors. Equally, investors require an environment where concerns can be raised and differences managed constructively. Successful tourism destinations are rarely built through confrontation. They are usually built through collaboration between the public and private sectors.
There is also a practical reality. Prolonged public exchanges rarely end where they begin. One statement invites another, the second creates a fresh controversy, and before long the original issue becomes secondary. The public then follows the disagreement rather than the work. A public officer must appreciate that not every criticism requires a prolonged public defence. Sometimes, the most effective response is to answer the question directly and return attention to performance.

There is a difference between having an answer and answering the question. The two should never be confused. A chronology of letters, requests and responses may establish what happened between two parties, but it does not automatically resolve the larger question of institutional performance. Good communication understands that distinction. Better communication respects it.
This is where the discussion should return to first principles. What exactly is the Bureau trying to achieve? More visitors? Greater investment? Stronger hospitality businesses? Better destination marketing? More jobs for local communities? If those are the objectives, then communication should support them rather than distract from them. Ultimately, a tourism agency should be judged by visitor growth, investment attraction, destination visibility and the economic opportunities created through tourism.
For its part, Glocient is not a peripheral actor in Ekiti’s tourism story. As operator of Ikogosi Warm Springs Resort, it manages one of the state’s important tourism assets. Its decisions inevitably affect Ekiti’s tourism profile. Government therefore has a legitimate interest in maintaining a productive relationship with the company, just as the company has an interest in maintaining a productive relationship with government. That reality does not place Glocient beyond scrutiny, nor does it require the company to accept every government request. It simply recognises that both parties have a shared interest in the success of one of Ekiti’s flagship attractions.
The public should therefore expect the conversation to move beyond correspondence and towards results. It should expect information about visitor numbers, tourism promotion, infrastructure improvements, partnerships and investment initiatives. These are the measures that should ultimately matter. If government believes an operator is falling short of an agreed responsibility, that should be addressed through the appropriate institutional process. If an operator has concerns, those concerns should equally have a channel for resolution.
Strategic communication is not about having the final word. It is about ensuring that communication advances institutional objectives. Sometimes that requires a detailed explanation. Sometimes it requires restraint. In many cases, measurable performance is the most persuasive response. Public office also requires knowing which matters need the microphone, which require a meeting and which are better left to the evidence of what is achieved.
I am particularly concerned that the original question raised in the Assembly should not disappear beneath the weight of this exchange. Whatever anyone thinks about Glocient, the Bureau still owes the public a clear account of how it intends to unlock Ekiti’s considerable tourism potential. The people of Ekiti do not ultimately need to decide who wrote the better rejoinder. They need to know whether tourism is attracting visitors, creating jobs, supporting businesses and contributing to economic growth.
There is still time to redirect the conversation. The Bureau can convene tourism operators, clarify expectations, strengthen partnerships and create structured channels for addressing disagreements. Sponsorship issues can be separated from broader tourism policy. Areas of responsibility can be clearly defined. Future disagreements can then be managed through established processes rather than public exchanges.
Ekiti possesses too much tourism potential for its public conversation to be dominated by a single dispute. Ikogosi, its unique warm springs, cultural heritage, hospitality businesses, and emerging tourism opportunities should be generating stories about growth, investment, and enterprise. Those are the narratives capable of strengthening the state’s tourism brand and expanding its economic opportunities.

Mr Ojo-Lanre, with respect, the Bureau’s position has been made clear. Glocient has also made its position known. There is now greater value in returning attention to the work than in extending the correspondence. The time has come to let the public conversation give way to institutional engagement and measurable performance.

The strongest response will not be another letter. It will be what visitors experience, what investors build, what communities gain and what tourism ultimately contributes to Ekiti’s development. That is the story worth telling.

Ganiyu Olowu is a public affairs analyst based in Lagos