There is nothing inherently wrong with governments using social media influencers. In the modern communications landscape, digital creators have become powerful vehicles for public engagement. They reach audiences that traditional media often cannot. They shape conversations, mobilise attention and influence public opinion across platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube and X.
Governments worldwide now utilise digital communication strategies to disseminate information on public health, emergencies, education, conservation and public services. A utility company, such as the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), can reasonably justify using online communicators to spread awareness about water outages, conservation measures, infrastructure projects, or customer service initiatives.
But that is not the issue now confronting this country. The real issue is whether public resources are being used for partisan political messaging disguised as corporate communications. WASA’s hiring of social media influencers raises ethical, governance and accountability concerns that go beyond standard recruitment.
A Sunday Guardian investigative report has revealed that nine influencers were hired at salaries totalling over $85,000 monthly. Combined, they command online audiences exceeding 181,000 followers. Several of these influencers reportedly appeared in branded WASA attire while defending Government decisions online and attacking critics of the administration.
This crosses an important democratic line. Public institutions are funded by taxpayers. Their communications arms are supposed to serve national, not party interests.
Citizens would have little objection if qualified digital communications professionals were transparently hired to improve customer outreach or modernise public engagement. However, allegations that influencers were informally used to defend the Government online create the perception that political loyalty may have mattered more than merit, qualifications or institutional need.
Even more troubling is the reported recruitment of 416 workers within months of the April 28, 2025 general election. Questions surrounding whether vacancies were publicly advertised, allegations of names being sent directly to Human Resources for hiring and the delays in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests all contribute to an appearance of opacity rather than transparency.
None of this means every person hired is unqualified or undeserving of employment. Nor does it mean governments cannot modernise communication strategies using digital creators. However, public employment is not merely about optics or online popularity.
Taxpayer-funded hiring must meet the standards of transparency, fairness, procurement integrity and measurable public value. Citizens have a right to know who approved these hires, whether qualified communications professionals were considered and what safeguards separate public communication from political campaigning?
These are not partisan questions. They are democratic ones. This country already suffers from deep public distrust toward institutions. When State agencies appear to become extensions of political machinery, that distrust worsens. WASA’s core mission is not online political combat. It is providing reliable water and sewerage services to citizens while managing enormous financial and operational pressures.
Governments have every right to communicate. They do not have the right to use public institutions as taxpayer-funded political defence units.
Ultimately, the controversy is not about influencers themselves. It is about whether public resources are being used in the public interest or in the service of partisan politics.
That distinction must remain sacred in any functioning democracy.
