Opinion

Are INEC Resident Commissioners Homeless Bats?

Published

4 years ago

July 27, 2022

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D,

INTRODUCTION

I watched and listened very carefully to my good friend, Chief Festus Okoye, INEC’s cerebral Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, on his recent Channels television interview. I completely disagree with his take and analysis of the place and space of the Resident Electoral Commissioner ( REC ) in the organogram and scheme of things concerning the electoral process in Nigeria. His analysis, which literally dismissed the RECs with a wave of the hand in a most cavalier manner, if swallowed hook, line and sinker, has the dangerous effect of not only completely defaming RECs and rendering their electoral efforts at the grassroots state levels completely useless, but also of creating avoidable turmoil and schism within INEC itself, as one homogeneous and independent family unit. It can also have the unintended consequence of self-immolation which can self-destruct. It amounts,in my humble view, to saying that the RECs who are constitutionally created across the 36 states of Nigeria, simultaneously and indeed under the same sections with INEC Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners that Okoye harped on, are no more than mere appendages to INEC headquarters, and therefore toothless bulldogs and amoebic bats that neither belong to the animal kingdom, nor to the birds kingdom.

If RECs’ monitoring and conduct of elections at state level levels can be whimsically and capriciously discarded because, according to Okoye, they are mere delegates of the national body of INEC that comprises only of the Chairman and 12 members, then one must ask why the Constitution created them at all in the first place? Can the human anatomical body be whole simply by having a head and stomach alone, without the brain, limbs, eyes, ears, tongue and nose? I think not. How come, if we were to follow Okoye’s argument to its logical conclusion, that a mere witlow suffered by a person on his tiny thumb ,keeps the person’s entire body in pains, agony, pangs and sleeplessness throughout the night?

SOME LEGAL ANALYSIS

Section 153 (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the establishment of certain federal bodies, including INEC.

By virtue of section 153 (2) thereof, the “composition” and powers of the bodies established in section 153 (1) above ( which includes INEC ) , are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution.

Now, Paragraph 14 (1) of the said 3rd Schedule clearly provides that:

“INEC shall comprise the following members –
(a) Chairman, who shall be the Chief Electoral Commissioner;

(b) Twelve other members to be known as National Electoral Commissioners …”.

However, the same paragraph 14 , but under subsection (2), immediately provides for the establishment of the office of the Resident Electoral Commissioner ( REC ) in each state of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. There are 36 states of Nigeria by virtue of section 2(3) of the Constitution. Without these states, there is no sovereign entity by the name ” Nigeria”.

WHO THEN IS A MEMBER OF INEC?

The answer as regards membership of INEC can be found in section 153 (2) of the Constitution. It provides that the composition and powers of the Commission are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule.

“Composition”, by definition according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, simply means, “the manner in which something is composed”. “composed of” is itself defined at page 286 of the Black’s Law Dictionary,Centennial edition, as,”formed of; consisting of”.

Even the New Webster’s Dictionary of English Language (International Edition), at page 200, also defines “composition” as meaning “content with respect to constituent elements”. To be sure, the word “constituent”, according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, means “essential part; component, element”; or “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”.

It is therefore crystal clear and beyond disputation ( except for those who may want to engage in bannal intellectual mastutbation ) that the word “composition” as deployed in section 153 (2) of the Constitution regarding the membership of INEC simply means nothing beyond the aggregation of those bodies established under section 153(1). Only this meaning logically accords with the clear words and phrases used in all the definitions above stated.

Let us see them once more:
“essential part; component elements’’; or, “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”; or “formed of; “consisting of”; or “content with respect to constituent elements”.

The next question that agitates the mind is, what then is “member”, and how do we demonstrate that the meaning of “composition” as used in section 153 (2) simply means membership of INEC?
“Member”, says page 740 of Webster’s Ninth collegiate Dictionary, simply means “one of the individuals composing a group”; or “ a constituent part of the whole”. Also, “member”, according to the
Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial edition, on the other hand, means “one of the persons constituting a family, partnership, association, corporation, guild, court, legislation or the like”.

Thus, exactly the same words are employed in all the dictionaries cited above to define the two words, “compose” and “member”. What this translates to is that the words, “composition” and “membership”,are not mutually exclusive, but can be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.

By simple analytical deduction, when section 153 (2) of the Constitution speaks of the composition of INEC being as defined in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution, what the section is simply saying is that the membership of INEC shall be as contained in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule.By extension, and when stated slightly differently, the persons mentioned in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule relating to INEC are also all members of the INEC, notwithstanding that the word “member”, has not been specifically used therein. Membership and composition are therefore synonyms that can be used interchangeably here.

For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 14 (1) of part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution used the word “member” with respect to Chairman and 12 National Commissioners. However, subsection 2 of the same paragraph 14 went ahead to frontallly make provisions for the establishment of the position of REC in each state of the Federation and the FCT. How then can it be reasonably argued that the same schedule 14 which recognizes not only the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners , but also the same RECs of 36 states and the FCT, can decide to accord recognition to, and ascribe duties to the former alone, whilst excluding the latter?
It simply does not add up, both in realms of law, logic, morality and constitutionalism.

My humble take therefore, is that the Chairman of INEC, the 12 National Commissioner and the 37 RECs are all members of the same INEC family; no more, no less.None is a child of bastardy. None suffers from any form of dubious or questionable pedigree. This is more so as their existence draws life from the same oxygen freely donated by the same paragraph 14, with one falling under subsection(1) and the other under subsection (2), within same part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which clearly provides for the “composition” of INEC.

To deny this is to deny that six is the same thing as half a dozen and that Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark.It will thus amount to the greatest illogicality and delusional fallacy of all times to argue that RECs whilst being constitutionally recognized to “compose” or form the “composition” of the INEC, are at the same time denied of being “members” of the same INEC. It will amount to giving power and recognition with the left hand, and at the same time simultaneously snatching same back with the right hand. Such will not make any common, thematic, logical, legal, grammatical or constitutional or sense.

In further support of this my humble argument is section 8 of the old Electoral Act of 2010, as amended, which provides for the staff of INEC without including the office of the REC. Yet, RECs carried out their duties effectively under the Act until the 2022 Act . The question will then be this: what are RECs under the Electoral Act if they are not constitutionally recognised as members of INEC and also not recognized as staff of INEC? Are they bats; haemophrodites, that do not belong to any class? Why then should they be recognized at all in the first case in the Constitution ? Why not simply allow the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners be all-in-all, the beginning and the end ,of INEC? RECs,it is submitted, are not mere disposable committee of persons which INEC can simply appoint and arbitrarily dispense with under section 7 of the 2010 Electoral Act. Why does the Constitution which provides for the offices of the President and state Governors also provide for the positions of Ministers and Commissioners if the latter were not important or necessary to our polity?

It will be recalled that Okoye had rightly, on 9th July, 2022, reassured Nigerians that “in line with its constitutional and legal obligations, the Commission deployed monitors to the various constituencies and received reports of such exercise…the Commission stands by the monitoring received from our state offices”. Why will INEC now ignore these reports which emanated from the very RECs who are physically on ground? Is it no longer the owner of a house that knows where the yam and knife are kept? Is it a total stranger ( the visiting INEC Commissioners and officials) who will know the terrain better and what took place before, during and after the primarily? Can you have an Army General without foot soldiers? I think not. Or,do you?

What is INEC’s reply, for example, to the glaring anomaly in Kano state, where the REC, Professor Riskwua, told the whole world that the only governorship primary INEC office monitored in Kano had produced Mohammed Sani Abacha, but with the APC leadership and INEC headquarters arbitrarily changing it to one Ambassador Wali? Yet, this was an election monitored in the full glare of the whole world amidst television cameras and the print and social media.

Why will INEC be accepting from political parties, names of persons who did not undergo statutory primaries monitored by its state officials any officials and headed by the RECs, and instead, accept compromised results that lack electoral integrity from political parties, on primaries that were never conducted, and where conducted, were never monitored by its state RECs and officials?

These worrisome scenarios are already playing out in many states across Nigeria, including Oyo, Sokoto, Ogun, Kano, Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom and Abia, amongst others.

How come,for example, that of the 26 candidates of the ruling APC that emerged from valid primaries duly conducted and monitored by INEC Akwa Ibom state INEC office headed by the REC, Mr Mike Igini, only two names were extracted and accepted from the entire report by INEC headquarters?

Whatever happens to section 29(1) of the Electoral Act which gives INEC teeth that only ” candidates that emerged from valid primary ” shall be submitted to INEC by political parties for publication? Why will INEC be shying away from, and abdicating the the statutory powers and duties generously imposed by section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, to compulsorily monitor party primaries; and section 84(13) thereof, to reject names of persons submitted by political parties that fail to comply with the provisions of the Act as regards such primaries? I cannot understand. Or, can you?

CONCLUSION
I will conclude this my little contribution as follows. It is crystal clear, per adventure, that the appointment, duration and termination of offices of RECs, including those of INEC Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners, ( all of whom form part of Federal bodies established under section 153 (1) of the Constitution ), are respectively provided for in sections 154 and 155(1) and (2) of the Constitution. This provision applies with equal force to the Chairman, National Commissioners and all RECs. No difference could have been contemplated when no other section of the Constitution provides separately for RECs. Even disqualification criteria for membership of INEC is the same under section 156 for both RECs, the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners. The same scenario plays out in the mode of removal of members of INEC and other federal bodies from office, under section 157(1). This is by the “President acting on an address supported by 2/3 majority of the Senate praying that he so be removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct”. My humble submission here is that since the Constitution has not made any other provision regarding the mode of removal of RECs, it goes without saying that section 157 (1) also applies to them with equal force, since their office is also a constitutional creation.

Indeed section 6 of the 2022 Electoral Act also replicated Section 157 (1) of the Constitution specifically for RECs.

I further humbly submit that it is simply no argument that paragraph 14 (1) of the 3rd Schedule used the word “membership” to refer to only the Chairman and the other 12 National Commissioners only, since section 153 (2) of the same Constitution has already used the all encompassing word of “composition”, to cover all. As luminously held in the case of OGBEBOR V. DANJUMA & ORS (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 843) 403 @ 425, a schedule to an Act cannot override,be superior to, or detract from, the substantive provisions of the Statute itself. That will amount to the tail wagging the dog.

It is thus submitted that whichever way it is viewed, the RECs of the 36 states and the FCT, are all constitutional members of INEC and saddled with specific duties which the INEC headquarters cannot usurp at will. They are the Commission ‘s eyes on the ground and know where the roof leaks.The Constitution says so. No person or Act of the National Assembly can derogate or subtract from this truism, by virtue of section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

Opinion

The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery

Published

2 days ago

March 14, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“True leadership awakens the highest in others by first mastering the highest in oneself: it weaves inner clarity with outward vision, human connection with disciplined action, collective harmony with unyielding integrity—transforming individuals, institutions, and societies into their fullest potential.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD.

Leadership constitutes a pivotal force in human progress, operating as a multifaceted process that shapes personal trajectories, drives organizational excellence, and steers national destinies. Far beyond positional power, it integrates psychological depth, behavioral agility, strategic acumen, relational wisdom, systemic orchestration, and unwavering ethical commitment. The focal dimensions—self-leadership, visionary direction, relational influence, strategic execution, team and systemic alignment, and ethical integrity—serve as enduring pillars, drawn from an evolving synthesis of leadership theories including trait, behavioral, contingency, transformational, servant, authentic, and collective models. These dimensions interact dynamically, adapting to cultural nuances, technological advancements, generational shifts, sustainability demands, and geopolitical complexities in our interconnected era.

This expanded exploration delves profoundly into each dimension, weaving theoretical foundations with practical applications across individuals (peoples), corporations, and nations. It incorporates concrete, globally recognized examples—historical and contemporary—to provide clearer insight, deeper comprehension, and alignment with international standards of scholarship and practice. These illustrations highlight successes, challenges, and transferable lessons, underscoring leadership’s role in fostering resilience, innovation, equity, and sustainable flourishing.

Self-Leadership: The Internal Compass of Personal Mastery and Authenticity

Self-leadership forms the foundational dimension, emphasizing proactive self-direction through heightened self-awareness, emotional regulation, disciplined habits, continuous learning, and resilient agency. Rooted in cognitive-behavioral and positive psychology frameworks, it empowers individuals to align actions with intrinsic values amid external pressures.

For individuals, self-leadership manifests in personal triumphs over adversity. Viktor Frankl, the Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, exemplified this during his imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps. Despite unimaginable suffering, Frankl chose his attitude and inner response, maintaining meaning through logotherapy principles and later authoring Man’s Search for Meaning. His practice of finding purpose in suffering demonstrates self-leadership’s power to preserve dignity and agency in extreme conditions.

In corporations, self-leadership scales to executive authenticity and cultural modeling. Leaders who engage in reflective practices—such as executive coaching, mindfulness, and vulnerability—cultivate environments of ownership. Companies like Google have institutionalized self-leadership through programs encouraging personal growth and error reflection, contributing to innovation cultures where employees proactively drive projects.

Nationally, self-leadership appears in statespersons exhibiting moral courage and transparency. Leaders who publicly acknowledge policy shortcomings while pursuing national interests build institutional trust. This dimension supports anti-corruption efforts and civic responsibility in diverse societies, enhancing social capital and intergenerational equity in education, health, and environmental policies.

Visionary Direction: Articulating and Mobilizing Toward Compelling Futures

Visionary direction involves crafting an inspiring, feasible future narrative and aligning resources through foresight, purpose communication, and motivational alignment. It draws from transformational leadership, integrating scenario planning and inspirational rhetoric.

Individuals harness this by defining legacy-oriented missions, channeling energy beyond daily survival toward skill mastery or societal contribution, sustaining motivation through setbacks.

Corporations depend on visionary direction for enduring success. Reed Hastings at Netflix pioneered streaming disruption, envisioning a world where entertainment shifts from physical media to on-demand digital access. By investing boldly in original content and global expansion while phasing out DVD rentals, Hastings aligned the company with technological inevitability, transforming it from a mail-order service into a dominant entertainment platform.

At the national level, visionary direction shapes long-term policy architectures. Jacinda Ardern, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, articulated a compassionate, science-driven vision during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing “team of five million” unity, rapid border closures, and clear communication. This foresight enabled effective containment, economic safeguards, and high public trust, illustrating how inclusive national narratives mobilize cross-generational coalitions amid global crises.

Relational Influence: Building Trust, Empathy, and Inclusive Connections

Relational influence prioritizes authentic bonds through emotional intelligence, active listening, empathy, and mutual empowerment. Grounded in leader-member exchange and relational theories, it transforms interactions into collaborative partnerships.

Individuals apply this in nurturing supportive networks—family, mentorships, communities—that enhance well-being and collective efficacy.

In corporations, relational leadership fosters inclusive, innovative cultures. Satya Nadella at Microsoft shifted from a competitive to a collaborative ethos, emphasizing empathy, growth mindset, and cross-functional dialogue. By modeling vulnerability (sharing personal stories of his child’s disability) and empowering teams, Nadella revitalized innovation, boosted employee engagement, and drove market resurgence.

Nationally, relational influence bridges societal divides. Leaders who facilitate inclusive dialogue and empathetic policymaking reduce polarization. In multicultural or federal contexts, this strengthens democratic legitimacy and crisis coordination, building social capital vital for equitable reforms.

Strategic Execution: Adaptive Implementation and Problem-Solving Under Uncertainty

Strategic execution demands rigorous analysis, decisive action, resource optimization, and iterative adaptation. Informed by contingency and situational models, it balances efficiency with flexibility.

Individuals exercise this in career navigation or personal crises, converting obstacles into advancement.

Corporations require strategic execution for resilience. During Boeing’s 737 MAX crises, leadership (post-2019) executed comprehensive safety overhauls, MCAS redesigns, regulatory cooperation, and cultural reforms—demonstrating calibrated response to regain certification and stakeholder confidence.

Nationally, this dimension drives governance efficacy. New Zealand’s Ardern again exemplified execution during COVID-19 through evidence-based lockdowns, testing scaling, and adaptive economic support, minimizing health and economic damage while maintaining public adherence.

Team and Systemic Alignment: Orchestrating Cohesion and Interdependent Success

This dimension empowers others, clarifies interdependencies, and aligns efforts via distributed leadership models, viewing outcomes as networked rather than hierarchical.

Individuals contribute through meaningful delegation and peer mentoring.

Corporations build high-performing ecosystems by dismantling silos and integrating functions. Relational approaches, as seen in collaborative cultures at companies emphasizing team empowerment, enhance knowledge flow and adaptability in global operations.

Nationally, alignment harmonizes institutions and partnerships. Effective leaders empower subnational entities while ensuring coherent direction, facilitating seamless development and crisis responses in federated or diverse systems.

Ethical Integrity: The Moral Anchor of Accountability and Sustainability

Ethical integrity demands principled consistency, transparency, stakeholder protection, and long-term orientation. Drawing from servant and authentic paradigms, it safeguards trust across all endeavors.

Individuals uphold personal codes resisting expediency.

Corporations embed integrity through governance and stakeholder focus. Johnson & Johnson’s 1982 Tylenol crisis response—swift nationwide recall, transparent communication, and tamper-proof packaging redesign—exemplified ethical prioritization of public safety over short-term profit, restoring trust and setting industry standards.

Nationally, ethical leadership combats corruption and upholds rule of law. Leaders modeling public-interest primacy enhance credibility, investment attraction, and civic virtue diffusion.

Interconnections, Global Relevance, and Pathways Forward

These dimensions interlink synergistically: self-leadership informs visionary clarity, relational trust enables execution, systemic alignment reinforces ethics. Cross-level synergies create virtuous cycles—personal mastery informs corporate innovation, which shapes national resilience.

In today’s context—AI integration, climate urgency, demographic changes, multipolar dynamics—hybrid, culturally intelligent leadership prevails. Measurement via assessments, scorecards, and indices supports development through mentorship, academies, and experiential programs.

Conclusion: Leadership as Catalyst for Interdependent Flourishing

The focal dimensions offer a timeless, adaptable framework elevating individuals to fulfillment, corporations to prosperity, and nations to inclusive progress. Through global examples—from Frankl’s resilience and Hastings’ disruption to Ardern’s empathy and Johnson & Johnson’s integrity—leadership demonstrates profound impact when harmonized with authenticity and service. Investing in these dimensions equips stakeholders to navigate complexity, fostering legacies of resilience, equity, and shared well-being across borders and generations in our interdependent world.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

The Scars of Glory and the Burden of Leadership!

Published

1 week ago

March 7, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“True glory is never unscarred, and authentic leadership is never unburdened; together, they forge the crucible from which resilience, innovation, and equitable possibilities emerge for peoples, corporations, and nations alike” – Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

In the annals of human endeavor, glory is often portrayed as the pinnacle of achievement—a radiant summit where triumphs are celebrated and legacies are forged. Yet, beneath this luminous facade lie the indelible scars that mark the journey: the wounds of sacrifice, the echoes of failure, and the silent toll of perseverance. Leadership, in turn, emerges not as a crown of ease but as a weighty mantle, demanding unwavering resolve amid uncertainty. This write-up explores the intertwined realities of glory’s scars and leadership’s burdens, framing them as essential catalysts for unlocking possibilities across peoples, corporations, and nations. By examining these themes through a global lens, we uncover how embracing such challenges can foster resilience, innovation, and sustainable progress in an interconnected world.

The Essence of Glory’s Scars

Glory, in its purest form, is rarely bestowed without cost. It is the culmination of battles fought, both literal and metaphorical, where victories are etched upon the soul as much as upon history. For individuals—be they entrepreneurs, artists, or activists—the scars of glory manifest in personal sacrifices. Consider the innovator who toils through sleepless nights, forsaking family ties and personal well-being to birth a groundbreaking idea. These scars are not mere blemishes; they are badges of authenticity, reminding us that true achievement demands vulnerability and endurance.

On a corporate scale, these scars appear in the form of organizational trials. Companies navigating global markets often endure economic downturns, regulatory hurdles, and competitive upheavals. The 2008 financial crisis, for instance, left deep imprints on multinational firms, forcing restructurings that scarred workforces through layoffs and cultural shifts. Yet, from these wounds emerge stronger entities, equipped with adaptive strategies and diversified portfolios. In nations, glory’s scars are woven into the fabric of collective memory—wars, revolutions, and economic reforms that reshape societies. Post-colonial nations in Africa and Asia, for example, bear the marks of independence struggles, where the pursuit of sovereignty inflicted profound social and economic pains. These historical scars, however, pave the way for renewed identities and developmental trajectories, aligning with international standards such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize inclusive growth and resilience.

Internationally, the delivery of possibilities hinges on recognizing these scars as opportunities for learning. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report highlights how past crises, like pandemics or climate events, scar global systems but also unlock innovations in healthcare and sustainability. By integrating lessons from these experiences, peoples can access education and empowerment, corporations can drive ethical capitalism, and nations can pursue equitable diplomacy. Thus, glory’s scars are not deterrents but gateways to transformative potential.

The Weight of Leadership’s Burden

Leadership, often romanticized as visionary guidance, carries an inherent burden that tests the mettle of those who wield it. At its core, this burden involves decision-making under duress, balancing immediate needs with long-term visions, and shouldering accountability for outcomes that affect multitudes. For individuals in leadership roles—such as community organizers or CEOs—the weight manifests in ethical dilemmas and emotional fatigue. The isolation of command, where leaders must project confidence while grappling with doubt, can lead to burnout, a phenomenon increasingly addressed in global mental health initiatives like those from the World Health Organization.

In the corporate realm, the burden of leadership is amplified by stakeholder expectations and market volatilities. Executives must navigate shareholder demands, employee welfare, and environmental responsibilities, often amid geopolitical tensions. The rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria exemplifies how leaders are now accountable for broader impacts, transforming corporate governance into a high-stakes endeavor. Successful corporations, such as those in the Fortune 500, demonstrate that bearing this burden fosters innovation; for instance, tech giants investing in AI ethics despite regulatory uncertainties create pathways for inclusive technological advancement.

Nationally, leaders bear the heaviest loads, steering policies that influence millions. Heads of state confront burdens like economic inequality, security threats, and diplomatic negotiations, all while upholding democratic principles or cultural values. The Paris Agreement on climate change illustrates this: national leaders commit to burdensome transitions from fossil fuels, yet these efforts unlock possibilities for green economies and international collaboration. In alignment with frameworks like the International Monetary Fund’s guidelines for fiscal responsibility, such leadership burdens ensure that nations deliver on promises of prosperity and stability.

Globally, the burden of leadership is a shared imperative for delivering possibilities. The G20 summits and similar forums underscore how collaborative leadership can mitigate burdens through knowledge exchange and resource pooling. By fostering diverse leadership models—incorporating gender parity and cultural inclusivity, as advocated by the OECD—peoples gain empowerment, corporations achieve sustainable competitiveness, and nations build resilient alliances. Ultimately, the burden is not a curse but a crucible, refining leaders to champion equitable futures.

Intersections: Where Scars and Burdens Converge

The scars of glory and the burden of leadership are inextricably linked, forming a symbiotic dynamic that propels progress. Leaders who bear burdens often accumulate scars through trials, yet these experiences equip them to inspire and innovate. For peoples, this convergence means access to role models who humanize success, encouraging grassroots movements that align with universal human rights standards, such as those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Individuals scarred by adversity, like refugees turned advocates, embody leadership that uplifts communities, delivering possibilities in education and social mobility.

Corporations at this intersection thrive by institutionalizing resilience. Firms like Patagonia, scarred by environmental advocacy battles, shoulder leadership burdens in sustainability, setting benchmarks that influence global supply chains. This approach not only complies with international trade standards but also unlocks market opportunities in eco-conscious consumerism.

Nations, too, find strength in this nexus. Emerging economies, scarred by historical exploitations, burden their leaders with reforms that foster inclusive growth. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area exemplify how addressing these elements can deliver economic possibilities, harmonizing with WTO principles for fair trade.

In a world of rapid globalization, embracing these intersections adheres to international norms, such as those from the International Labour Organization, ensuring that progress is ethical and inclusive. By viewing scars as wisdom and burdens as duties, stakeholders across levels can co-create a landscape ripe with opportunities.

Pathways Forward: Embracing the Inevitable for Collective Advancement

To harness the scars of glory and the burden of leadership for global benefit, a proactive stance is essential. Education systems worldwide should integrate leadership training that acknowledges these realities, preparing future generations in line with UNESCO’s global citizenship education. Corporations must invest in wellness programs and ethical frameworks, aligning with ISO standards for sustainable management. Nations, through multilateral engagements, can share best practices, as seen in ASEAN’s collaborative leadership models.

In conclusion, the scars of glory remind us of the human cost of aspiration, while the burden of leadership underscores the responsibility of power. Together, they form the bedrock for delivering possibilities to peoples, corporations, and nations—fostering a world where challenges are not endpoints but springboards to excellence. By honoring these elements with integrity and foresight, we pave the way for a more equitable and dynamic global order, where glory’s light shines not despite the scars, but because of them.

Opinion

Give What, to Gain What? Reflections on the 2026 International Women’s Day Theme

Published

2 weeks ago

March 5, 2026

Eric

By Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya

At first glance, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day celebration sounded a little odd to me.

Last year’s theme, Accelerate Action, was clear enough. You read it and immediately understood it as a call to move faster, push harder, do more, close the gaps. It was energetic, direct and unambiguous.

But “Give To Gain”? Give what? To whom? And to gain what, precisely? How is giving a pathway to gender equity? In the legal profession, and in leadership generally, we are trained to think in terms of advantage. What do I gain? What do I secure? What do I protect? But the more I reflected, the more I realised that perhaps that reflection was the point. Because my reflection took me to some of the most defining moments in my professional journey, and they did not come from what I took. They came from what someone chose to give.

A colleague who gave me insights instead of indifference, a leader who gave me visibility in a room where my voice would have been overlooked, a mentor who gave me honest feedback when flattery or a comfortable silence would have been easier.

None of those acts diminished them. They did not lose relevance, influence, or authority. If anything, their giving expanded their impact. Sometimes, some of us act as though giving someone else room to rise somehow shrinks our own space. But leadership does not weaken when it is shared wisely. It deepens.

That is the quiet power behind “Give To Gain”, and the paradox at the heart of this year’s theme. “Give To Gain” is not a call to diminish ourselves. It is a call to invest in one another because when we give from strength, we gain strength. So give respect.
give access. Give honest evaluation. Give opportunity without prejudice. And you will gain trust, loyalty and potential. Give mentorship and gain contunuity, give equal footing and gain the full measure of talent available. That kind of giving multiplies gain.

So perhaps the theme is not so odd after all. In a world that often asks, “What do I stand to lose?” this year’s International Women’s Day asks instead, “What could we stand to gain, if we were all willing to give?”

In the context of gender equity, the theme becomes even more compelling. Giving equal footing is not about doing women a favour; it is about acknowledging merit. When barriers fall, capacity rises to the surface. When access expands, talent flourishes. When women thrive professionally, institutions gain.

Against this backdrop, I began to think about the remarkable women who embodied this principle long before it became a theme. Women who gave intellectual rigour to complex situations and gained distinction. Women who gave courage and resilience in the face of resistance or in rooms where they were the only one, and gained respect. Women who gave mentorship to younger women and gained a legacy that cannot be erased.

Women who gave integrity to public service and the private sector and gained trust and admiration that cannot be manufactured.
Women whose boldness did not ask for permission to contribute. They did not lower their standards to fit expectations.

They gave of their intellect, their discipline, their time and their resilience, and in doing so they expanded the space for others. That is the spirit I want to honour this IWD month.

Beginning tomorrow, on International Women’s Day and continuing through all the remaining days of March, I will be celebrating a female icon who exemplifies this principle. Women who have given and gained. Each day, one story. One journey.

One example of boldness in action. Not to romanticise their journeys or suggest that their paths were easy, but to illuminate them and show what is possible when you dare to try.

Each profile will tell a story of contribution and consequence, of how giving strengthens, and how excellence, when sustained with integrity, inevitably earns its place.

My hope is that other women will read these stories and recognise themselves in them. That men also will read them and see leadership, not limitation. And that we will all be reminded that progress is rarely accidental. It is built, often quietly, by those willing to give more than is required.

If this year’s theme “Give To Gain” means anything to me, it means that we must intentionally amplify the inspiring examples that prove what is possible when women are bold.

Because inspiration and visibility are forms of giving. And sometimes, the simple act of telling a story is the spark that lights ambition in someone who was unsure where or whether she belonged.

This March, I choose to give inspiration and visibility and honour where it is so richly deserved.

And I trust that in doing so, we will gain a stronger world, a clearer sense of direction and possibility and another generation of women bold enough to step forward without apology.

Now the theme no longer seems strange. Now I understand that when we give boldly, we gain collectively. And that is a theme worth celebrating.

Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN FCIArb