Since the discovery of the Index case of the Coronavirus in Lagos state late February, 2020 and its spread to other neighbouring states in the southwest, the Quarantine Act, which has come in different slightly adjusted name in the region, has become the an instrument that governors of the affected states are wielding to legalize their executive order on restrictions put in place to fight the further spread of the novel virus in their domains.
Adapted from the Quarantine Act Cap 2 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the legal instrument seeks to give a legal impetus to directives by governors on request for self-isolation, restriction of movements of goods and services, ban on public gatherings of persons, restriction of trade, business and commercial activities. However, the law also goes a step further. It prohibits the spread of disinformation and fake news about COVID 19 either on social media or through any other means. The prescription of six months imprisonment or payment of a fine was equally common to all the laws as passed by the concerned state governments. This aspect of the law could become a bone of contention very soon. This could not be divorced from the fact that it brings back the memory of the recent Social Media Bill under consideration by the national legislature.
It would berecalled that the Social Media Bill, officially named the Protection from Internet Manipulation Bill 2019, had scaled second reading stage at the Nigerian Senate in November, 2019. The bill issaid to prohibit statements on social media considered “likely to be prejudicial to national security” and “those which may diminish public confidence” in Nigeria’s government. The proposed bill had also attracted condemnation from civil society and pro democracy groups in the country because it is widely believed that it would curb and criminalize any criticism against the government.
Like the social media bill, the section on the prohibition of disinformation and fake news about the Coronavirus is addressing a very crucial issue in the fight against the virus. The deluge of fake news, misinformation and disinformation that has plagued the battle against the virus has been very problematic. The World Health Organization declared it as infodemic and expressed the fear that many victims might be recorded from the scourge of fake news than from the pandemic. However, there is a more important question that hits hard at the principles of democratic right to free speech whether on or offline. This is more so that Nigerians have come to see the social media platforms as a messiah in their quest for good governance.
In Osun, the new law has had its first victim when a man, Akinloye Saheed, wasarraigned before an Osogbo Magistrate Court over his COVID 19 post on Facebook. Akinloye was arrested on 11 April, 2020 when he claimed in a Facebook post that the state government imported COVID 19 cases into the state to get funds from the Federal Government. The prosecutor alleged that his post, which contravenes the Osun COVID 19 Laws 2020, was made with the intent to incite the public. He has since been refused bail and clamped to jail by Magistrate Olusegun Ayilara. The case has been adjourned to 13 May, 2020.
As the fight against the novel virus rages on, the Quarantine Act is one of the legacies that would be left behind after the battle is long won. However, whether it aids and could strengthen the battle against fake news and health disinformation without infringing on the rights of the citizens, only time will tell.
Sure, the cash, as used in the popular statement – Cash is King – is contextually the liquidity in a business, and not the physicality of cash. But if we take it literally, Cash is no more the king. In short, Cash has left the palace. Coronavirus has kicked Cash out of the palace.
People are avoiding touching cash as it can be an agent for the spread of coronavirus. Digital payment has picked up. Some companies have banned payment via cash. If you pay with cash, it means you are breaking the WHO guidelines of being a few feet apart!
Can this new redesign survive the pandemic? I will vote YES but certainly not as the same pace of adoption as we have now. Do not bring cash here – use the plastic or USSD since the Central of Nigeria had already banned the use of cheque during this pandemic: clearing of cheques is suspended in Nigeria.
Stores are shuttering all over the United States, and many of those still open are balking at cash. Shoppers are switching orders to Amazon and Walmart.com. Many restaurants that have stayed open won’t take cash, and operate without any contact at all, requiring customers to pay first online.
What once seemed like the oldest, most reliable way of paying now seems fraught: A physical object changing hands, bringing people closer than 6 feet, covered in who knows what.
As long as legal entities or individuals exists for the purpose of interacting or relating with others in a society, issues are bound to occur before crisis sets in. Many professionals and academic scholars have explained both the issues and crisis using a number of philosophies and approaches. According to PwC, a global management consulting company, crisis occurs due to significant internal and or external factors or escalation of smaller incident(s), which could have enterprise-wide, multi-functional consequences. It also has the propensity of disrupting normal business operations and harm or damage reputation.
In its 2019 global crisis survey, PwC says “nearly 7 in 10 (69%) leaders have experienced at least one corporate crisis in the last 5 years — with the average number of crises experienced being 3. According to the sampled Chief Executive Officers and other C-suite executives in more than 20 countries, ethical misconduct and product integrity were the most disruptive crises experienced in the last few years. In the People’s Republic of China, financial or liquidity, competitive or market place disruption and product failure or product liability were the top most disruptive crises experienced.
This piece intends to explicate these results in line with the meaning of crisis, according to the PwC and how we see it based on our experiences within the context of the United States of America and Huawei’s face-off. Huawei is a global telecom supplier and manufacturer of phones.
Since 2012, the company has not had it good with the US. Various sources reveal manifestation and downplaying of different issues from 2012 to 2019. Sources [see for example] indicate that the US government felt that the Chinese company is having “coziness with the Chinese government and fears that its equipment could be used to spy on other countries and companies. It’s the reason why the US banned companies from using Huawei networking equipment in 2012 and why the company was added to the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List in May 2019, following an executive order from President Donald Trump effectively banning Huawei from US communications networks.”
Based on the ban and strategic opportunities the company will lose in the country, the year 2020 has been predicted to be “difficult” Huawei. This is premised on the fact that the US government will continue to pressure other countries to avoid the Chinese company’s products and services, especially 5G wireless networks. Going by the PwC’s definition of crisis and its impacts, Huawei has been experiencing the consequences of the US’ action. But, one thing experts have let us realised is that issues emerged before the main crisis that is engulfing Huawei now. Our analyst examines this using computational and textual explication analyses.
The Emerging Opportunities and Issues
Our mining and analysis of the timeline of the crisis show that there are opportunities and issues for Huawei from January 9, 2018 to April 17, 2020. In a crisis, both evolve. Capturing value from the opportunities depends on how the concerned stakeholders in an organisation respond to the issues. In other words, key employees at the corporate and business levels, including those at functional level are expected to deploy internal and external resources in a coordinated manner towards issues mitigation and opportunities capturing.
From the textual explication, we learnt that lost, acquired, proposed or launched opportunities existed for Huawei from January 9, 2018 to April 17, 2020. These opportunities and issues emerged mostly in 2019. This is quite understandable considering the fact that the United States’ ban was tenser during the year than 2020. However, the Coronavirus outbreak couple with the 5G’s possible cause and expansion of the virus’ survival on human body has increased the issues more than the acquired opportunities. With this, our analyst believes that the ‘difficult’ revenue growth and eventual profit dip prediction is most likely to come to pass.
According to the data, some countries and businesses withdrawn their interest in the products and services of Huawei. We categorised this as lost opportunities. While this occurred, some clients and countries increased their interest in the company by signing new contracts or expressing future purchase of the company’s products or engaging it in installation of telecommunication equipment such as 5G network system. In our experience, this is acquired opportunities. While navigating the water of the crisis, the data indicate that company is not relenting in creating and launching new products, and assuring the public about its capabilities and abilities to deliver proposed value despite the country-driven crisis. This is explicitly captured as proposed or launched opportunities. Of course, the United States is not resuming into its shell and expecting its action to yield the expected results without constant communication and legal actions against the company. One of the actions was the house arrest of daughter of the founder, Ren Zhengfei, in Canada. In addition, the US government through the Parliament and Courts instituted a number of political and legal measures against the company.
Exhibit 1: Number of Opportunities and Issues 2018-2020
Source: CNet, 2020; Infoprations Analysis, 2020
In view of the measures, how did the public see the company along with the key issues thrown out by the US government and other countries? Our analyst finds answers to this question using real time data that aligns with the timeline of the crisis. Analysis shows that global audience using the Internet for information seeking had significant interest in Huawei along with the 5G network in 2018. We found 76.5% of the interest in the 5G network as association with the company. This indicates that public believe that the company is producing the product. Hence, the need to understand some needs and issues on it. Unfortunately, analysis establishes that the security issue narrative of the US government does not manifest in the public understanding of the network in relation with Huawei [see Exhibit 2].
Analysis reveals 40.6% reduction in knowing the security issue associated with the network when the public had one percent interest in understanding the Chinese company. In 2019, we found that the interest in the company resonated with the 5G network by 30.8%, meaning that one percent of people’s interest in Huawei translated into 30.8% in the network. The non-connection of the company with 5G between January 1, 2020 and April, 17, 2020 could be viewed as a possible sign that the company might lose some revenue due to continuous political and legal measures from the US government, and possibility of other countries’ rejection of the product.
Our analyst further explores the current narrative that 5G network contributes to the spread or infection of Coronavirus, a novel virus recently discovered in Wuhan, China. Surprisingly, public is yet to have significant interest in the virus along with the company. Presently, it remains unclear whether people believe in the narrative in line with the company’s product.
Exhibit 2: Huawei and Main Issues in the Public Views
Source: Google Trends, 2020; Infoprations Analysis, 2020
Who is in Charge?
During crisis, strategic teams are needed. In most cases, communication and crisis management teams must be instituted by the leading person, the Chief Executive Officer or any other strategic leader. Many media sources indicate that Ren Zhengfei, the CEO and other key personnel in the Marketing and Communications, and Production Departments have been creating alternative and counter narratives on the crisis. Ren has spoken with a number of renowned media houses such as BBC News, CNBC News, Forbes and Bloomberg.
“This incident was not a surprise to any of our senior management. We are all of one mind. We need to change our employees’ mindset, as we are not in peace time anymore. We need to switch. For more than 30 years, our employees have been very well off, which is another way to say slacking off. We must take this opportunity to prevent our employees from slacking off. Secondly, during peace time, our products were advanced and superior, which allowed many mediocre employees to move into managerial positions,” Ren said during an interview with CNBC News.
Dominant Communication and Response Strategies
Our expectation is that the crisis and communication management teams of the company will use a number of strategies in their efforts of managing the crisis. Analysis of three interviews of the CEO, his press release and excerpts from the press conference held in December, 2019 reveals that reminder and attack the accuser were the dominant communication and response strategies employed by the leadership of the company. This has many implications.
Attack the accuser means that the company is confronting the US government and its society rather than addressing the issue. For instance, one of the excerpts from the press conference and credited to a key leader in the company says “Many people and small businesses in rural America do not have mobile network access. This decision will harm their interests. The FCC claims that Huawei is a security threat. But the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has not provided any evidence. This is a common trend in Washington these days.”
During one of his interviews, Ren Zhengfei equally says, “The U.S. has taken very extreme measures to target Huawei. The U.S. is so powerful, but why are they so scared of us? I think they overestimate Huawei. Such a small company, how come it’s been paid so much attention around the world? I’m excited that we have so much attention, but I think they exaggerate our role in the world. We haven’t done any promotion yet, but someone has already done such a great job of promoting us. I’m so grateful.”
The last sentence of the CEO’s statement reminds us about the place of reminder and justification communication and crisis response strategy. A number of views expressed by Ren through interviews contains these strategies. When these are adopted, a company in crisis time is conveying to the public information related to their previous achievements at the time before the crisis.
Ren, during his interview with Bloomberg, says “ 5G is not the atomic bomb. 5G is just a tool to transmit information. The content transmitted has nothing to do with the transmission tool. It’s just like a microphone — you can’t say a microphone is a dangerous tool because it can transmit voices. But the content of the voice, the person who speaks into the microphone, could be dangerous. How come the tool is considered dangerous?”
Through ingratiation and victimage strategies, the company praises businesses and countries that are supporting it and convinces the public that it is a victim of global market and political competitiveness.
Exhibit 3: Dominant Communication and Response Strategies
The insights have indicated that the leadership of Huawei needs to modify its crisis communication and management plan as it hopes to gain more market traction and projected revenue for 2020. Communication teams need to deploy reminder and justification more and downplay the use of attack the accuser, excuse and victimage strategies. While reducing the use, attention should also be paid to elimination of messages capable of showing that the crisis is between the Chinese and the US government. This is imperative because the crisis is country-driven and the fact that US is more likely to get sympathy from its allies in the North America region and other continents outside the Asia.
Check out our faculty list for the second edition of Tekedia Mini-MBA. A deputy managing director of a leading investment firm in Africa will lead a session on investing and fundraising. From business law to change management, everything is being worked out. A globally respected foundation which focuses on futurism will handle exponential technologies and opportunities in the age of singularity.
Let us NOT be stubborn over covid-19. Here in February when I cancelled a major speech in Turkey’s Economic Summit, some of our members claimed that the virus was not killing Africans. I did respond that I would not like to find out, and also wished for them to avoid possible stupid experiments. But over the last few hours, this pandemic is turning into a major African universe problem.
Yes, in the United States, the death rates for African-Americans are rising while most other ethnic groups are flattening. Because the World Health Organization (WHO) has maintained that no evidence exists that people who recovered from this disease have immunity over it, this war has not been won, as nothing shows a clear trajectory to the end of the tunnel.
There is no proof that people who have recovered from coronavirus have immunity to the disease, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned.
Epidemiologists at WHO said there is no evidence someone who has been infected cannot be infected again.
A senior epidemiologist at WHO, Maria van Kerkhove, at a virtual news briefing on COVID-19 said antibodies’ test will help measure the level of antibodies in the blood, but “that does not mean that somebody with antibodies means that they are immune,” she said.
She also said many tests for the ailment being developed are pinprick blood tests similar to instant HIV tests.
We understand that some live from hand to mouth, meaning they need to work daily to eat daily, yet, may we remember the popular African proverbs, “life is bigger than whatever is needed to sustain it. And if you leave life to pursue wealth, you are building for your enemies”. Yes, your life is more important than that money or job!
Do not join those protesting in the U.S. asking the government to let them loose, to return to work. And do not become a number; you are more than that. There is no sensible activism against the government on this: this is a brutal enemy, and it makes sense to stay with your squad as the world looks for victory.
