Crisis Communication in Practice: Lessons From The South C and Karen Building Collapses

Crisis Communication in Practice: Lessons From The South C and Karen Building Collapses

Jade Communications

Just a few days into 2026, Nairobi was shaken by two separate building collapses in South C and Karen. Beyond the tragic loss of life and injuries, the incidents exposed persistent weaknesses not only in construction oversight and emergency response but also in how institutions communicate during crises.

These events highlighted a crucial fact: while technical failures may trigger crises, communication failures often shape how the public perceives accountability and trustworthiness.

Crises unfold amid uncertainty, fear, and scrutiny. In such moments, institutions are judged not only by what they do, but by what they say, how quickly they say it, and how consistently they communicate.

Crisis communication

Crisis communication refers to the structured and coordinated dissemination of information before, during, and after events that threaten lives, public safety, operations, or institutional credibility. It is designed to guide public behaviour, reduce misinformation, and maintain trust in an institution. Unlike routine communication, crisis communication operates under severe time constraints and incomplete information, requiring clear and transparent messages.

Failing to communicate promptly leaves information gaps, quickly filled by rumours. Conversely, timely and honest messages stabilise public sentiment, reassure affected communities, and signal accountability.

Case study 1: South C building collapse

On January 2, 2026, a multi-storey building under construction collapsed in South C, triggering an emergency response involving county authorities, national agencies, and humanitarian actors. While rescue efforts were visible and immediate, public communication lagged behind events on the ground. There was no clearly identifiable spokesperson providing authoritative updates or context in the critical early stages.

Initial messages focused mainly on rescue operations, with limited information on casualties, regulatory approvals, or possible causes of the collapse. As a result, key public concerns were left unanswered, feeding their anxiety. Information reached the public primarily through live media reporting and social media posts by journalists and eyewitnesses, rather than through official channels.

This communication gap created a fertile ground for speculation. Online narratives around corruption, regulatory failure, and negligence gained traction, amplified by public frustration and political commentary. Public sentiment shifted rapidly from shock to suspicion and anger. From a crisis communication perspective, the response was fragmented and reactive, failing to project leadership or narrative control.

A more effective approach would have involved the early designation of a spokesperson to acknowledge the tragedy, express empathy to those affected, outline what was known, and commit to regular updates. Even limited, consistent information could have reduced misinformation and stabilised public confidence.

Case study 2: Karen building collapse

Barely a week later, another building under construction collapsed in Karen, resulting in fatalities and injuries. This time, communication from authorities was noticeably faster and more assertive. Statements from the National Construction Authority and the Nairobi County Government clarified that the building was unregistered and that preliminary findings indicated structural failures during construction. The suspension of the site pending investigations was announced publicly.

This response demonstrated a clearer application of crisis communication principles. Messaging extended beyond rescue efforts to address accountability and enforcement, and information was disseminated through media briefings and official statements that were quickly amplified by mainstream and digital media.

Public sentiment, while still marked by concern and grief, was comparatively more measured. The communication reassured the public that action was being taken. However, some challenges remained, particularly brief confusion caused by statements from different agencies being released at different times. Greater coordination through joint briefings could have further strengthened message consistency.

What these cases teach us about crisis communication

The contrast between the South C and Karen incidents highlights that crises are shaped not only by the events themselves but by how authorities communicate in real time. Where communication is delayed or inconsistent, public anxiety and speculation grow; where it is timely and clear, confidence and trust can be maintained even amid tragedy.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate that crisis communication effectiveness depends largely on preparedness. Institutions that lack clear structures and protocols struggle to communicate effectively under pressure, while those that apply lessons and frameworks can improve. They also show that the public evaluates institutions as much on communication behaviour as on operational response.

How organisations can build an effective crisis communication policy

When it comes to crisis, it is usually not a matter of if, but when. This means that every organisation, ought to plan for that time. As the year begins, it is critical to either develop or review an existing crisis communication policy.

 An effective crisis communication policy begins with clarity. Organisations must define what constitutes a crisis and establish clear triggers for activating crisis communication procedures. This ensures a timely response and avoids delays caused by internal uncertainty.

Central to any policy is the designation of a crisis communication team with clearly defined roles. This includes a communication lead responsible for coordination, authorised spokespersons, and technical experts who provide verified information. Restricting public communication to designated spokespersons ensures that the message remains credible.

Preparation is critical. Organisations should invest in pre-crisis planning, including media training, scenario simulations, updated contact lists, and pre-approved holding statements for foreseeable risks. This preparation enables institutions to respond quickly and confidently without sacrificing accuracy.

Transparency and timeliness are essential principles. Institutions should communicate what is known, acknowledge what remains under investigation, and commit to providing updates. Silence or “no comment” responses undermine trust and allow misinformation to flourish.

Internal communication is equally important. Staff must be informed early and clearly to prevent confusion, anxiety, and unauthorised disclosures. Internally aligned institutions communicate more consistently and credibly externally.

Finally, crisis communication must be linked to visible action. Announcements of investigations, suspensions, or policy reviews reinforce accountability. Post-crisis communication, including lessons learned and reforms, is essential for restoring trust.       

Prioritising crisis communication

The building collapses in South C, and Karen were tragic reminder of the human cost of regulatory and technical failures. They also tested how institutions communicate during crises. As these events demonstrate, poor communication can fuel mistrust, whereas clear, transparent, and timely messages can help maintain public confidence even in the midst of tragedy. Organisations that prioritise clear policies, designated leadership, preparedness, and accountability are better positioned to manage crises and to preserve credibility in their aftermath.