When the fire broke out at Afriland Towers on September 16, 2025, claiming multiple lives, the corporate response became almost as much a subject of scrutiny as the tragedy itself. The initial holding statement from UBA, sister company to the building’s owner Afriland Properties, sparked widespread criticism for being technically accurate but emotionally tone-deaf. While the statement successfully clarified that their head office was safe and the fire was at the neighbouring Afriland Towers, it lacked the empathy that such devastating circumstances demanded. This communication misstep offers critical lessons for organisations navigating crises, particularly the delicate balance between protecting reputation and demonstrating genuine human concern.
The rush to issue a holding statement, while procedurally correct, revealed how template responses can backfire when not tailored to specific contexts. Crisis protocols are essential infrastructure for any organisation, providing the framework that prevents paralysis when disaster strikes. However, these protocols must include flexibility to adapt standard templates to the gravity and nuances of each situation. The Afriland incident demonstrates that having a crisis communication plan is only half the battle; the other half is ensuring your team knows when and how to inject appropriate empathy into prepared responses. What worked for a service outage or minor incident cannot be simply copied and pasted into a scenario involving loss of human life without appearing callous, regardless of the factual accuracy.
This brings us to one of crisis communication’s most challenging paradoxes: timing. Communicate too early, and you risk issuing vague statements that lack crucial details or, worse, contain errors that you’ll need to retract. Wait too long, and misinformation floods the void you’ve left, creating narratives you’ll struggle to control. In the Afriland case, social media was already ablaze with speculation that UBA’s headquarters was on fire, necessitating quick clarification. Yet the speed of response cannot justify the absence of humanity. Crises rarely afford the luxury of wondering whether to respond or what tone to strike; they demand immediate action guided by pre-established protocols that have been stress-tested against various scenarios, including worst-case situations.
The contrast between UBA’s initial statement and Tony Elumelu’s subsequent personal response was stark and instructive. Elumelu led with empathy, expressing deep sadness and acknowledging that “the loss of a life is painful, all the more so when it is family and friends.” He apologised for the earlier statement, noting it “does not reflect how deeply saddened we are.” While his humanity resonated, the apology inadvertently raised questions about organisational competence. By disavowing his communications team’s work so publicly, the message many heard was “I hired people whose competence is questionable in this moment.” This creates its own crisis within the crisis: how do you correct course without undermining confidence in your team or appearing to have lacked oversight initially?
The Afriland tragedy highlights why leadership visibility in crisis moments cannot be entirely delegated to communications teams. C-suite executives must be trained not just to appear during crises, but to communicate with authenticity while staying on message. This is where preparation meets real-world unpredictability.
Tabletop exercises and media training can simulate pressure, but they cannot fully replicate the emotional weight of actual tragedy. What they can do is build muscle memory for balancing multiple objectives: acknowledging pain, providing facts, demonstrating accountability, and maintaining stakeholder confidence.
Real-life scenarios will always differ from training simulations in ways you cannot anticipate, but unpreparedness guarantees failure where preparation at least creates the possibility of success.
At Mosron Communications, we’ve seen firsthand how organisations with robust crisis communication training and well-established communications units navigate these treacherous waters more successfully. Our crisis communication training doesn’t just teach teams what to say; it develops their instinct for how to say it across different crisis scenarios.
We help organisations establish communications units with clear protocols that include empathy checkpoints, ensuring that speed never completely overrides sensitivity. Our C-suite media training also prepares leaders to be the human face of their organisations during the moments that matter most, equipping them to strike that elusive balance between transparency and strategy, between personal authenticity and institutional responsibility.
The Afriland tragedy is a sobering reminder that communications failures can compound actual tragedies, turning organisational missteps into reputational crises. In an era where every statement is screenshotted, analysed, and amplified within minutes, the margin for error has evaporated. Your holding statement is no longer just a placeholder; it’s a values statement. Your crisis response reveals not just your competence but your character. The question is not whether your organisation will face a crisis, but whether you’ll be ready to respond with both the speed and the soul that the moment demands. The difference between being prepared and being unprepared is often the difference between recovering stakeholder trust and losing it permanently.
As I close out, I would like you to reflect on which of our communications services would help your organisation proactively prepare for crises (our case studies are proof of our expertise).
If your reflection prompts you to send us a brief or an email at info@mosroncommunications.com, don’t hesitate.
Till next time,
Keep communicating,
Tolulope Olorundero