Opinion
The Oracle: Nigerian Law Firms and Foreign Names: Matters Arising
Published
3 years agoon
By
Eric
By Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, Ph.D.
Juliet, soliloquizing in one of the most romantic scenes (“The Balcony Scene”) in Shakespeare’s epic, “Romeo and Juliet” (Act 2 Scene 2), said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. Juliet was telling Romeo that a name is just a name; with no meaning behind it. What matters is what something is; not what it is called. To Juliet, Romeo would still remain the handsome young man, even if he had a different name.
Certain questions criss-cross my mind as I attempt to critically analyze the above quote in the light of some Nigerian law firms and legal practitioners adopting Western/foreign/white-sounding names in preference over their Nigerian names. Why ‘Mungo Park & Clapperton’, instead of ‘Aluko & Oyebode’; ‘Banwo & Ighodalo’; or ‘Ozekhome & Femi?’ Why ‘McCullough & Clyde’; and not ‘Sobowale & Okonkwo’, when the firm is neither owned by, nor affiliated with the former? Why ‘Westborough Partners’; and not ‘Mustapha & Oche’, when none of the partners bear ‘Westborough’? Why ‘Greenfields, Everest & Associates’; ‘Westbrook, Blackberg & Co’; ‘Bracebridge Attorneys’; ‘Bladerstone & Cottingham’; ‘Stone & Cozens LLP’; ‘Woodpecker & Bird Solicitors’; when none of the partners bear such foreign names? Why not simply ‘The Prestige Chambers’; or ‘God is Marvellous LLP’? Why must it be names given to natural persons of Western origin, usually English?
The Oxford Dictionary defines a name as “a word or set of words by which a person or thing is known, addressed, or referred to”. Wikipedia defines a name as “a term used for identification by an external observer. They can identify a class or category of things, or a single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context. The entity identified by a name is called its referent. A personal name identifies, not necessarily uniquely, a specific individual human.”
Just google some names of Nigerian law firms bearing foreign names, and you will appreciate my great concerns. Does this mindset suggest a bias against Nigerian names? Cultural cringe? An internalized, but undisclosed inferiority complex, leading to the dismissal of one’s culture as inferior? Is it a belief that Western/foreign names are more polished and easily roll off the tongue? Is it an identity management/destigmatization strategy for foreign businesses with foreign content? Is it believed that the use of such names gives one a particular status? Or is it just a matter of fashion, vogue, fad, fancy, or trend? I do not know. Or, do you?
It is conceded – that name choice is purely within the discretion of founders/partners of a law firm and as permitted by Nigerian laws. But, should native identities, for the sake of profit or fashion, be lost to foreign influence? Names are markers of identity and denote one’s community membership. My concern arises from the fact that, rather than indigenous names, none of these adopted Western/foreign names is associated with the names of any persons within such firms.
I must not be misunderstood to argue that law firms in Nigeria cannot bear names that are by patent, invented; or abstract, or religious names. Nor do I mean that Nigerians who bear European/foreign names as their indigenous names cannot establish law firms using such foreign names. I also must not be understood to posit that a firm cannot coin a name from the names of its Head or Partners; e.g., MOC, coined from Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers. My concern rather, is when individuals who neither bear such names, nor are in partnership with foreign bearers of such names; nor affiliated to or constitute subsidiaries of the foreign law firms bearing such foreign names, decide, for whatever reason, to take on western or white-sounding names belonging to natural persons, in establishing their law firms.
The reason for these may oftentimes be attributed to fashionability; ease of recognition, spelling, and pronunciation; for international business transactions conducted by these law firms; and perhaps to emphasize the founder’s or partners’ foreign qualifications. I respectfully submit that it is most demeaning to elevate foreign names over native identities. It is equally insulting to posit that ‘Saoirse Whitsborough & Partners’, or ‘Livingstone & Churchill Solicitors’, are better easily pronounced than ‘Gani Fawehinmi’s Chambers’; or ‘Chief Rotimi Williams Chambers’; or Wole Olanipekun & Co; or Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers; or ‘Olisa Agbakoba LLP’; or ‘ Uzoamaka Okeke & Co’; or Aluko & Oyebode; or Udo Udoma & Bello Osagie; or Banwo & Ighodalo; or Olaniwu Ajayi LP. To me, it amounts to sheer cultural cringe to hold that Nigerian names are less fashionable than Western/foreign names.
Conversely, ‘Juggernaut Chambers’; ‘Divine Mercy Law Firm’; ‘Salam LLP’; and ‘Shalom Chambers’, are examples of appealing abstracts; coined or invented names; and religious names, couched in English and other foreign languages. Founders or partners may settle for such where they prefer not to use their indigenous given, middle, or surnames. Names such as ‘Rosenblerg LLP’, ‘Witheresburg & Co’, or ‘Bottomleg & Neck Partners’, have unfortunately become the vogue. I experienced this aberration firsthand. A foreigner wanted to do business in Nigeria. I easily recommended a friend of mine who is an expert in that field of law where I am not. I told him so clearly. His google search revealed my friend’s name, quite alright, but not his law firm. He raised concerns, as he wanted to deal directly with a law firm and not an individual. It was then I got across to my Nigerian bossom friend, who disclosed to me, to my utter amazement, his law firm’s foreign name. I asked him why. He simply said, “oh boy, leave matter”. Really?
My concern is that this practice is not, by the same token, embraced by Western/foreign legal practitioners and law firms, whether practising law in Nigeria, or other African countries. Never has it been heard of that Western/foreign Legal practitioners or law firms, for example, ‘Rodriguez Salamasor’ and ‘John Hawthorne’, that for the purpose of doing business, ease of recognition and easier pronunciation of names, or for any other reason howsoever, established a law firm with a wholly indigenous Nigerian or African name, say, ‘Agbedor, Adekunle & Obiora LLP’ ;a law firm which neither has an affiliation with an Agbedor, Adekunle or an Obiora; nor has a partner with such names. They do not and will never ever adopt Nigerian or African names in establishing their law firms. Why then must we continue on this degrading path? I do not know. Or, do you?
I dare say that use of foreign names does not constitute any stronger factor in revenue generation than the solid reputation of the driving minds and brains behind such law firms. Many of the biggest law firms in Nigeria bear wholly indigenous names. Firms that earn the highest revenues and income across the world do not borrow African or Nigerian names; yet they thrive. According to the ‘2021 Am Law 100 Report’, the largest law firms in the world are found in the US. They collectively earned $111 billion in total revenue in 2020. Also, in Wikipedia’s compilation of the world’s largest law firms by revenue, referencing ‘The American Lawyer’ in its article titled, “The 2020 Global 200: Ranked by Revenue”, the following US law firms were listed as top generators of annual revenue in the global legal market:
1. Kirkland & Ellis with $4,154,600,000 in revenue; 2,589 lawyers (at the exchange rate of N735 per dollar, that amounts to N3.053 billion Pa).
2. Latham & Watkins with $3,767,623,000 in revenue; 2,720 lawyers.
3. DLA Piper with $3,112,130,000 in revenue; 3,894 Lawyers.
4. Dentons with $2,920,000,000 in revenue; 10,977 Lawyers.
5. Baker McKenzie with $2,899,600,000 in revenue; 4,809 lawyers.
6. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom with $2,632,615,000 in revenue; 1,694 lawyers.
7. Sidley Austin with $2,337,803,000 in revenue; 1,922 Lawyers.
8. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius with $2,265,000,000 in revenue; 2,063 lawyers.
9. Hogan Lovells with $2,246,050,000 in revenue; 2,642 lawyers.
10. White & Case with $2,184,850,000 in revenue; 2,200 lawyers.
11. Jones Day with $2,077,000,000 in revenue; 2,514 lawyers.
12. Norton Rose Fulbright with $1,904,019,000 in revenue; 3,266 lawyers.
13. Ropes & Gray with $1,903,616,000 in revenue; 1,247 lawyers.
14. Greenberg Traurig with $1,641,790,000 in revenue; 2,070 lawyers.
15. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett with $1,618,633,000 in revenue; 996 lawyers.
In the UK, some top law firms are:
1. Clifford Chance with $2,500,000,000 in revenue; 2,489 lawyers.
2. Allen & Overy with $2,160,729,000 in revenue; 2,447 lawyers.
3. Linklaters with $2,093,569,000 in revenue; 2,393 lawyers.
4. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer with $1,942,013,000 in revenue; 1,812 lawyers.
In Canada an article by Statista Research Department shows that the Canadian law firm of Toronto-based ‘Borden Ladner Gervais’, though not a global mammoth, is one of the top generators of revenue in the global legal market, competing with United States law firms. Not a single African or Nigerian name ever featuresin these. Indeed, no Nigerian law firm can boast of 250 lawyers, a minuscule for small-time law firms in the USA, UK, and other Western countries.
None of the above-listed law firms has taken on African or Nigerian names (whether for the ease of conducting foreign transactions; indicating a wide geographical spread of its offices; or for any of the reasons usually given by Nigerian Firms for the preference of western/foreign names). Yet they thrive. Do they not?
Although revenue, as shown earlier, is undoubtedly key to the sustainability and success of any business and constitutes an important tool for law firm owners/ partners to track growth and improve profitability, the name chosen by a law firm does not necessarily affect the ability of a law firm to generate income.
A person is his own name. I humbly submit that the choice of using Western/foreign names, or white/foreign-sounding names in setting up law firms, oftentimes indicates the pitiable perception of one’s name through the blurred lenses of prejudice, inferiority complex, cultural cringe, colonial and neo-colonial mentality.
It is said that “the worst form of colonialism is the colonialism of the mind”. This choice of foreign names is absolutely unnecessary. A colonialism of the mind reflects in another man’s name being preferred to one’s name. We should never again opt for western or foreign names of natural persons. We should instead, be proud of using the original names of partners. It could also be indigenous, abstract, invented, coined, or religious names; but certainly not foreign or English names.
What is in a name? “Though that which we call a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”, I respectfully submit that naming one’s law firm by the given foreign name of a natural person of western/ foreign descent with whom one shares no tie or affinity whatsoever, would not smell any sweeter than one’s indigenous name; an abstract; or patented name. What is of utmost importance is the value brought to bear on one’s law practice. It is about the content and not the form; the substance and not the shadow.
DISCLAIMER: ALL NAMES (EXCEPT THOSE KNOWN TO ME OR FROM STATED SOURCES) MENTIONED IN THIS PIECE ARE FICTITIOUS. NO IDENTIFICATION WITH ACTUAL PERSONS (LIVING OR DEAD) IS INTENDED OR SHOULD BE INFERRED.
Related
You may like
Opinion
The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
Published
2 days agoon
March 14, 2026By
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
Related
Opinion
The Scars of Glory and the Burden of Leadership!
Published
1 week agoon
March 7, 2026By
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.
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
Related
Opinion
Give What, to Gain What? Reflections on the 2026 International Women’s Day Theme
Published
2 weeks agoon
March 5, 2026By
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
Related


Wife’s Death: Mourners Throng Former Ovation Editor, Mike Effiong’s Home in Commiseration
Glamour, Class As Adebola Williams Celebrates Stylish Ruby Jubilee
Electocral Act: Knocks As NASS Prioritized Removal of Certificate Forgery As Ground for Election Petition
2027: Tinubu Wants to Contest Against Himself – Dele Momodu
The Billionaire Gang: The Quartet That Keeps Nigeria in Limelight
Nova Bank Appoints Jude Anele As MD/CEO, Meets CBN Capital Requirements
Voice of Emancipation: No End in Sight to the US/Iran War
The Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
Tenure Policy: India, Others Reject Tinubu’s Ambassadors
Adenuga, Dangote, Otedola, Rabiu Make 2026 Forbes Africa Billionaires List
Nine Senators Announce Defection to ADC
Business Series: UBA to Spotlight Africa’s New Generation of Female Leaders
Fuel Importation Ban: Dangote Tackles NMDPRA over Continuous Issuance of Import Licences
The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)
Trending
-
Boss Picks3 days agoThe Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
-
Headline5 days agoTenure Policy: India, Others Reject Tinubu’s Ambassadors
-
Headline6 days agoAdenuga, Dangote, Otedola, Rabiu Make 2026 Forbes Africa Billionaires List
-
National4 days agoNine Senators Announce Defection to ADC
-
Featured6 days agoBusiness Series: UBA to Spotlight Africa’s New Generation of Female Leaders
-
Business2 days agoFuel Importation Ban: Dangote Tackles NMDPRA over Continuous Issuance of Import Licences
-
The Oracle3 days agoThe Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)
-
World3 days agoRescue Effort Underway As Fueling Aircraft Crashes in Iraq – US Military

