Opinion
The Oracle: Disputes Between States and the Federation: Examining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Pt. 3)
Published
2 years agoon
By
Eric
By Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
In our last discourse on this series, we delved deeper into the constitution of the apex court (Supreme Court) with regards to its membership and how it affects its jurisdiction. We also x-rayed how the subject matter of a case determines a court’s jurisdiction and the conditions precedent to assumption of jurisdiction by a court. Today, we shall continue and conclude on the apex court’s power of jurisdiction and thereafter take a look at the definition of a federation; The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link and the Principles for the Invocation of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Please read on.
“Dispute” For The Purpose Of Invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Continues)
In A.G. OF THE FEDERATION V. A.G, OF ABIA STATE & 35 ORS, (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) pg. 689 at 737 the word ‘dispute’ was defined by my Lord S.M.A. Belgore, J.S.C., C.J.N. (as he then was), as follows: “To my mind, a dispute involves acts of argument, controversy, debate, claims as to rights, whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet. I will not close the category of disputes.” Suit No. S.C. 27/2010: (2011) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1248) 31 at 166-167. A dispute is a conflict of claims or rights or demands on one side met by contrary allegations on the other side.
In A.G ABIA v. A.G FEDERATION, Suit No. SC. 73/2006: (2007) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1029) 200 at 219-220. Tabai, J.S.C. held thus: “With respect to the construction given to the word “dispute”, the opinion of the Court (Per Belgore, J.S.C. as he then was) is quite apposite in determining the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction in this case. On page 701 he said of “dispute” thus: ‘…A dispute is a dispute whether apparent or lingering. It is remarkable that in the counter-claims to the suit some States have admitted there is a dispute. This Court in Attorney- General of Bendel State V. Attorney-General of The Federation; (1981) 10 S.C. 1; (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1 Attorney-General of The Federation V. Attorney-General of Imo State, (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178 set out clearly what is a dispute to the extent of using authoritative English dictionary. To my mind, a dispute involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, and claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.’”
The same Belgore, J.S.C. (as he then was) had earlier in A.G, OF THE FEDERATION v. A.G OF ABIA STATE, & 35 ORS (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) 689 at 737, held, inter alia, that the term dispute as used in section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution “…Involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.”
In his view, C.J.N. (rtd.) in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & 35 Ors Ibid, at pp 728-729, adumbrated as follows:
“What constitutes a dispute under Section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as Section 232 subsection (1) in question had been considered by this Court in the cases of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 22 ORS, (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1, and A.G OF THE FEDERATION V. A.-G OF IMO STATE & 2 ORS. (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 239; (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE’S case, Bello, J.S.C., (as he then was), stated as follows on pp. 48 to 49 thereof:- “To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds Firstly, there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation, Secondly, I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute, The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion… I also held as follows on p. 320 thereof. It is a well-established principle of the interpretation of the Constitution that the words of a Constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness- UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, and NAFIA RABIU V KANO STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C. 130 at pp. 148-149. The word ‘dispute in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section on the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, provides that “dispute is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention.”
Disputes Between States And The Federation: The Legal Position
Section 232 (1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between States and the Federation. In order to appreciate this provision, it is expedient to examine what a Federation means.
“Federation”- Meaning
In A.G LAGOS STATE v. AG FEDERATION & ORS, 2014) LPELR-22701(SC), at pp 129-130, Pars A-A. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC on the definition of “Federation”, held thus:
“Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) defines “Federation” as follows: “Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” In A.G. Kano State vs A.G. Federation, Ibid this Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC, relying on the definition of “Federation” within the meaning of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, which bears the same meaning in Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution, differentiated between Federation (or the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the Federal Government thus: Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word “Federation” was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully adopt the definition of the word “Federation” in Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria.’ By this meaning…all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any complaint against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, is completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court.”
“The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link
For a better understanding of the meaning of the word “Federation”, the Supreme Court, per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC, only recently emphasized the distinction between the “Federal Government of Nigeria” and the “Federation” in A.G OF KADUNA STATE & ORS v. A.G OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-59936(SC); at Pp 22 – 24 Paras F – C., thus:
“So much heavy weather is made about the distinction between the Federation and the Government of Nigeria that exercises its executive powers. That distinction no doubt has a constitutional basis. But since the Government of the Federation exercises the executive powers of the Federation, there is, legally and practically speaking, hardly a dividing line between the acts of the Government of the Federation and the acts of the Federation. The distinction does not exist to the extent of turning the Government of the Federation into a sovereign that can act without regard to the Federation. The Government of the Federation is not sovereign. It is a creation of the Constitution for the purpose of exercising the executive powers of the Federation. The Federation is inherently the sovereign and its sovereignty is further established by S.2(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that- (1) Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The sovereignty enjoyed by the Federation is owned by several individual persons constituting the people of the Federation of Nigeria who own the lands that together form the territory of Nigeria. S. 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution acknowledges this ownership by declaring that- (a) Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority. (b) The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government, and (c) The participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.”
The implication of the above decisions is that, for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction, it must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or between States.
Principles For The Invocation Of The Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court
Many actions between states and the Federation have failed as a result of the failure to appreciate the thin line that grounds the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court laid this confusion to rest in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION, (2007) LPELR-24343(SC) where, per, WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC, held at pages 95 – 97, Paras F – C), that:
“The Constitution is very clear on when the Supreme Court will invoke its original jurisdiction on a matter. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution provides: “232(1) the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. (To be continued).
Thought For The Week
“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever”. (William Howard Taft).
Related
You may like
Opinion
The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
Published
4 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
2 weeks 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


Reno, Fani-Kayode’s Brains Configured to Say Anything and Delete – Dele Momodu
Eid-el- Fitr: Interior Minister Announces Thursday, Friday As Public Holidays
AFCON 2025: Senegal Rejects CAF Verdict, Heads to CAS
Resign by March 31, Tinubu Tells Political Appointees Seeking Elective Offices in 2027
CAF Strips Senegal of AFCON 2025 Victory, Declares Morocco Winner
Electoral Umpires in Nigeria and Its Miasma of Failures
Borno Acts of Terror: Tinubu Orders Security Chiefs to Relocate to Maiduguri
The Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
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)
The Billionaire Gang: The Quartet That Keeps Nigeria in Limelight
Rescue Effort Underway As Fueling Aircraft Crashes in Iraq – US Military
The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
Operation Epic Fury: I’m No Longer Interested in Nobel Peace Prize, Says Trump
Trending
-
Boss Picks5 days agoThe Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
-
Business5 days agoFuel Importation Ban: Dangote Tackles NMDPRA over Continuous Issuance of Import Licences
-
The Oracle5 days agoThe Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)
-
Boss Picks3 days agoThe Billionaire Gang: The Quartet That Keeps Nigeria in Limelight
-
World6 days agoRescue Effort Underway As Fueling Aircraft Crashes in Iraq – US Military
-
Opinion4 days agoThe Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
-
USA6 days agoOperation Epic Fury: I’m No Longer Interested in Nobel Peace Prize, Says Trump
-
Events3 days agoWife’s Death: Mourners Throng Former Ovation Editor, Mike Effiong’s Home in Commiseration

