Opinion

The Oracle: The Plateau State Legislators’ Debacle: Between Law and Justice

Published

2 years ago

March 1, 2024

Eric

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Error is becoming a norm in Nigeria. It has become our tradition. We have become a country of oddities; a country of one error per minute! We have become unshockable. Sadly, we spend the bulk of our time discussing inanities that ordinarily should not be heard in any serious forum. When some of us speak out boldly about these issues, some bootlickers, fawners and ego masseurs who seek favours from government of the day accuse us of partisanship; or of attacking national leadership; or Justices of the Court. Last year, in Kano State, for example, we read about a certified True Copy of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming a judgment and simultaneously overruling it at the same time. The said judgment not only created great uncertainty, it also cast aspersions on the Judiciary and the legal profession, which are expected to set professional standards for others to follow. The earlier we addressed, boldly, these unfortunate anomalies emanating from our courts, the better for the legal profession and the entire Judiciary. Those who know or follow my works as a constitutional lawyer, human rights activist and Pan- Nigerian very well know that I defend the Nigerian judiciary passionately with every fiber in me. This is because the judiciary is the only and last hope of the common man and woman. But we must be careful not to allow sentiments becloud our true sense of judgement and thus get consumed by the ricocheting consequences. Some persons insist we are still learning. I thought learning leads to improvement? Like late legendary proverbsmith, Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola once metaphorically and laconically asked, if it takes a man 20 years to learn madness, how many years will he require to practise it? The focus of this write-up concerns not only about the serious implications of the recent Supreme Court judgement in Mutfwang & Anor v. Nentawe & Ors; SC/CV/1179/2023, (unreported), delivered on 12th January, 2024, to the effect that the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate are pre-election matters which constitute internal affairs of political parties, but also how the judgement highlights the grave injustice done to about 22 Legislators of Plateau State whose victories were snatched by the Election Tribunals and the Court of Appeal and handed over on a platter of gold to the APC losers. This is one judgement, aside the cases of Sen. Hope Uzodinma & Anor v. Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha & Ors (2020) JELR 86967 (SC) and APC V. Sherriff & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59953 (SC), that have sparked national debates and which will never melt away in a hurry.

The article seeks to know how the said Supreme Court judgment in respect of the gubernatorial election in Plateau State re-iterating that the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for any election is a pre-election matter and an internal affair of a political party, impinged on the earlier judgements of the intermediate court nullifying victories of 22 PDP Legislators and handing them over to APC Legislators.

THE BACKGROUND

Recall that the Court of Appeal had held that the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to comply with the orders of the High Court of Plateau State, Jos, directing it to conduct valid ward, local government and state congress elections before nominating its candidate for the various elective posts in the state was an incurable fundamental flaw. Relying on this finding, the Election Tribunal, under a petition brought by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its members sacked many lawmakers elected on the platform of the PDP. Under Section 246 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Court of Appeal is the final Court of last resort on appeals emanating from the decisions of Election Petition Tribunals in disputes arising from the conduct, outcome and legality of National Assembly and States House of Assembly elections. The implication of this is that no appeal can be filed before the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal had decided on the matter. However, as noted by the apex court in the recent judgment involving Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State, both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal were in grave error when they entertained the matter and the appeal respectively, as they lacked the requisite jurisdiction in the first instance.

GROUNDS FOR REMOVING LEGISLATORS

Can disobedience to a court order (which in any case was not correct, as found by the apex court in the Mutfwang Governorship appeal), be a ground to remove a legislator in the face of the clear provisions of sections 106 and 109 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which respectively deal with qualification and disqualification for the office of members of the House of Representatives and Assembly? I think not. A long line of cases vindicates me. See for example, Onor & Anor v. INEC & Ors; SC/CV/1194/2023; (Unreported), delivered on 12th January, 2024. Thus, as found by the Supreme Court both in the Muftwang case and Onor & Anor v. INEC & Ors (Supra), disobedience to an earlier order made by a court (which was not even the case in the two matters) is not one of the qualifying or disqualifying factors of a Governor or Legislator. In the Onor & Anor v. INEC & Ors (Supra) which I handled, the apex court held that the punishment for a disobedient party is to take up contempt proceedings as provided for in the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, CAP 407; LFN 1990; not to use it to disqualify an elected person and take away his victory. Thus, brings us to the issue of jurisdiction.

WHAT IS JURISDICTION?

Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to proceed with the adjudication of a dispute. In Attorney General of Anambra State vs. Attorney General of the Federation (2005) FWLR (PT. 268) 1557, I.T Muhammad, JSC, held that: “Jurisdiction to a court of law is equated to blood in a living animal. Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law, without which the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an exercise in futility.”

APC’S GROUSE BEFORE THE PLATEAU STATE ELECTION TRIBUNAL

The grouse of the APC and its members before the Plateau State Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal was premised on what they alleged to be invalid primaries conducted by the PDP. They had argued that the PDP had no structure in Plateau State (whatever that meant). But the trite position of the law now is that the issue of membership, nomination, submission of forms and sponsorship of candidates for elections are internal affairs of a political party as clearly provided for in Section 84(1) & (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022. Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act makes provisions before whom and where any issue emanating from the conduct of the primaries can be determined. It is an Aspirant that participated in the primaries that can complain to the Federal High Court. No other party has the vires to. Thus, section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, provides:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”

The appellate courts, in ringing tones, have upheld this trite position of the law in a plethora of cases: Enang v. Asuquo & Ors (2023) LPELR – 60042 (SC); Onubogu v. Anazonwu & Ors (2023) LPELR – 60288 (SC); Olabisi & Anor v. APC & Anor (2023) 59640 (CA); Odey v. APC & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59695 (CA); and Dickson v. LP & Ors (2023) LPELR – 60837 (CA). Indeed, the appellate courts have gone ahead to hold that a person or political party that attempts to peep through the fence to query the internal affairs of another political party wherein he /it was not a candidate in the primaries is nothing but a mere busy body and meddlesome interloper. See the cases of APC V. JEGA & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59866 (SC); Akpatason v. Adjoto & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48119 (SC); Daniel v. INEC & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC); APGA & Ors V. APC & Anor (2023) LPELR – 59914 (CA); and PDP V. Edede & Anor (2022) LPELR-57480 (CA). Matters such as the Plateau Legislators cases where victories were snatched from the PDP winners and handed over to their opponents in the APC on a platter of gold were therefore carried out without the requisite jurisdiction of the Tribunals and the intermediate court. The Supreme Court said this much in the case of Mutfwang & Anor v. Nentawe & Ors (Supra).

CONSEQUENCES OF A COURT DETERMINING A MATTER WITHOUT JURISDICTION

It is trite law that any exercise carried out by a court of law without jurisdiction is a complete nullity. The tests for determining whether a court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on a claim were laid down by the apex court in the causa celebre of Maduokolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. The apex court held in that case that a court is competent to adjudicate a claim when:
a. It is properly constituted concerning the number and qualification of its membership;
b. The subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction;
c. The action is initiated by due process;
d. Any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled.

ONLY A CO-ASPIRANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO COMPLAIN

As clearly provided in Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act and Section 272 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, it is the Federal High Court and not an election tribunal that has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on pre-election issues and this must be carried out within 14 days. Also, it is only a co-aspirant in the primary being disputed that has the locus to challenge the conduct of the said primary; and not his opponent in another party. See the cases of Alahassan & Anor v. Ishaku & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40083 (SC); Otegbeye & Anor v. APC & Anor (2023) LPELR – 60030 (CA); Labour Party v. INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR – 60548 (CA); YPP V. APGA & Ors (2023) LPELR-59799 (CA); and Usman v. APC & Ors (2020) LPELR – 50308 (CA). Delivering his own judgement in the Mutfwang appeal (it was unanimous), Justice Emmanuel Agim held that the APC and its candidate who had challenged Mutfwang’s election were not members of the PDP and so could not competently challenge the primary elections held by the PDP. He also held that the tribunal and Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the matter in the first place. He lectured further:
“The petition by the APC and its candidates is an abuse of the court process. I wonder why the matter came to court at all. This appeal is allowed. The legal profession should wake up or render itself irrelevant. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. My only worry is that a lot of people have suffered as a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision. It was absolutely wrong. The appeal is allowed.”

CHALLENGE TO PRIMARY ELECTION IS A PRE-ELECTION MATTER

Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, particularly (a), (b) and (c), delineates the circumstances which come under pre-election matters and; which can be challenged within the electoral framework. It encompasses an Aspirant’s grievance regarding non-compliance with the Electoral Act; or National Assembly regulations during political party primaries; disputes by Aspirants concerning their participation; and compliance issues with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). It also includes legal actions by political parties challenging INEC’s decisions, including disqualification of candidates; and complaints related to non-compliance with electoral laws in selection or nomination of candidates; election timetable; voter registration; and other preparatory activities for an election. See the cases of Anyakorah v. PDP & Ors (2022) LPELR-56876 (SC); APM V. INEC & Ors (2021) LPELR – 58375 (SC); Akpamgbo-Okadigbo & Ors v. Chidi & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24564 (SC); Salim v. CPC & Ors (2013) LPELR – 19928 (SC); Akinremi & Anor v. Suleiman & Ors (2022) LPELR – 56903 (CA); and APC V. Suleiman & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59911 (CA).

COURT OF APPEAL AS FINAL COURT ON LEGISLATORS’ MATTERS

It appears that the Court of Appeal being the Court of last resort in respect of all appeals from the decisions of election petition tribunals in disputes arising from the conduct, outcome and legality of National Assembly and States House of Assembly elections becomes functus officio once it delivers its judgement and cannot reopen a matter it has pronounced upon with finality. In other words, a judgment once delivered by the intermediate court on National and State Houses of Assembly matters cannot be varied where it correctly represents what the Court decided. Nor shall the operative or substantive part of such judgement be varied or substituted. See the cases of Oyetibo & Anor v. Oyinloye (1987) LPELR-2883(SC) at 11-13. Dingyadi & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2011) LPELR 950 (SC); Udende v. Suswam & Ors (2023) LPELR-61304 (CA); and Owoo & Ors v. Edet & Anor (2013) LPELR – 22042 (CA).

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S RECENT DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW INSTITUTED BY THE SACKED PDP PLATEAU LAWMAKERS

The sacked Plateau Legislators in an attempt to reclaim their lost positions in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Caleb Mutfwang case and it’s obiter pronouncement on the legislators’ injustice, filed a fresh application before the same Court of Appeal that had dismissed their appeal from the Plateau State Election Tribunal, requesting a review of the said judgement that sacked them. The appellate court however, as expected, on 28th February, 2024, dismissed the suit, describing it as a waste of judicial time, frivolous and lacking in merit. It further slammed a fine of N128 Million Naira (N8 Million per Applicant) on the already beleaguered Applicants.

BUT CAN A COURT THAT ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE FIRST PLACE NOT VARY ITS OWN JUDGEMENT DELIVERED WITHOUT SUCH JURISDICTION BY WAY OF A REVIEW?

The apex court had observed (on the Plateau Legislators’ case, albeit obiter), while delivering the judgment in the Governor Caleb Mutfwang appeal, that the lower tribunal and Court of Appeal erred as they acted without jurisdiction to have entertained the petitions sacking the lawmakers from the PDP over a matter bothering on internal affairs of their party. Couldn’t this issue of lack of jurisdiction as observed by the apex court have been further explored and subjected to the jurisdiction of the same Court of Appeal that delivered the judgement by way of review? Were the legislators wrong to have asked for a review? Let us have some guidance from earlier decisions of the Appellate courts. In Iteogu v. LPDC (2018) LPELR-43845(SC) 18-26, the Applicant had asked the apex court to revisit its decision concerning him which had been decided by the apex court in 2009. This application for revisitation stemmed from the fact that on the 12th July, 2013 and the 13th May, 2014, respectively, the Supreme Court had held in the cases of Aladejobi v. NBA (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 66, and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v. Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal directly from the LPDC. The Applicant’s posture in his case was that in those cases, the apex court had held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain appeals directly from the LPDC. He had therefore urged that there was the need to revisit his own case and declare that the decision or judgment of the apex court delivered in 2009 pertaining to him was given without vires and so set it aside and have his status restored as a legal practitioner. The apex court, per Justice Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC, while dismissing the application for review, held at pages 18 -26, inter alia, that aside the exception of the “slip rule”, the Supreme Court may only depart from its earlier decision in subsequent cases and thereby overrule itself. She emphasized that this:
“does not however mean that the previous decisions in those earlier cases differently decided would be given a new lease of life on account of this new development. The reason for this is self-evident as Oputa JSC stated in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya & Anor. (1989) 5 SCN113: (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274 thus:”We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final.” …In other words, the Supreme Court enjoys the finality of its decisions. Except for clerical mistakes, accidental slips, or omissions, it seldom re-visits its decisions by way of review, variation or setting aside. Once the Supreme Court has entered judgment in a case, that decision is final and will remain so forever. The law may in the future be amended to affect future matters on the same subject, but for cases decided, that is the end of the matter.” (Emphasis supplied) See also Anyagham v. FBN PLC (2021) LPELR – 55905 (CA); Emezie & Ors v. Linus & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40514 (CA); and Onuh & Anor v. Ogbe (2019) LPELR-48361 (CA).

THE PLATEAU LEGISLATORS’ FIASCO

In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, was there no remedy for those legislators who were wrongly sacked by the Court of Appeal? It is important to note that 22 PDP members in both chambers of the Nation’s and Plateau State Legislature were sacked by the Election Tribunals and the Court of Appeal, a development that left tongues wagging and ruckus generated across Nigeria. The legislators affected included two Senators – Simon Mwadkwon and Napoleon Bali; four members of the House of Representatives – Dachung Bagos, Beni Lar, Isaac Kwalu, and Peter Gyendeng Ibrahim; and 16 members of the Plateau State House of Assembly. They were all in PDP. Their constituents overwhelmingly voted for them. But the tribunal, supported by the Court of Appeal, felt otherwise. They took away the legislators’ victories and donated same on a platter of gold to the APC legislators who were roundedly trounced at the polls. The Plateau State people’s votes were rightly counted but the courts refused to make the votes count. This is what I have termed “Judocracy” in my OZEKPEDIA neologism, “as a genre of government practised only in Nigeria, where Presidents, Governors, Legislators and LG Chairmen are thrown up as having ‘won’ in an election. Their victory is immediately challenged. They get enmeshed in these legal calisthenics for the next 2 to 3 years of their corruption-ridden governance. Then, suddenly, they are conceived, incubated and delivered in the hallowed Chambers and precincts of our law courts, rather than through the ballot box. The will of the people is thereby subsumed in the decision and judgement of courts of law, the non-representatives of the people”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8ByKVWWj)

SHOULD THIS PLATEAU STATE LEGISLATORS’ DEBACLE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THRIVE UNREMEDIED?

Our case laws are decided based on precedents. Precedent is retrospective and ensures that a given posture is maintained even at the risk that harm may be caused by it.

The apex court in the Mutfwang’s case noted (albeit, by way of obiter), that the Court of Appeal was wrong when it sacked those legislators lawfully elected under the platform of the PDP, as it lacked jurisdiction to do so. However, precedent is saying, “Yes, we admit that there was an error. Nothing can be done about it.” I humbly disagree with this perpetuation of injustice under the thin guise of “my hands are tied”, or “that nothing can be done about it”. Surely, something can be done about it. I agree with Emmanuel Agim, JSC, when he noted in his judgement that, “it is high time the legal profession woke up before it became irrelevant.”

This admonition is in tandem with the admonition of venerable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (JSC), in Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274, 275, to the effect that “When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled.”

I also find solace in the complimentary and immortal words of Lord Denning in PARKER V. PARKER (1954) 2 All ER 22, where he illuminated thus:
“What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still while the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both”.

Afterall, law is but a mere handmaid to deliver justice, which is why “ubi jus ibi remedium” (Bello v. AG Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR 820).

Going by this, I humbly submit that when it comes to the critical issue of the court deciding a case in which it lacked jurisdiction in the first instance, then certainly, such a court has jurisdiction to revisit the said judgement and review it under certain laid down conditions. This is not a blanket or open-ended cheque for exhumation of buried cases. No.

A COURT CAN REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT

Thus, by reason of a long line of decided cases by the Supreme Court itself, a court has the constitutional power to enforce, review or set aside its own judgements under special circumstances as provided for by law. This is not tantamount to the court sitting on appeal over its own judgements. In Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. L.G. C. Ltd (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707), pp. 17-18, paras. D-C, the Supreme Court, per Abba Aji, JSC, held that the court has the power and leeway to set aside its own judgement and rehear a case, inter alia, under the following circumstances: “…where any of the other parties obtained judgement by fraud or deceit…. When judgement was given without jurisdiction…”

WHY THE PLATEAU STATE LEGISLATORS’ JUDGEMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

Surely, the judgement in the Plateau Legislators’ matter was dubiously obtained as there was no disobedience to any court order at all as rightly found by the Supreme Court in the sister Mutfwang case. All the cases had emanated from the same facts and circumstances. Secondly, both the Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to have entertained the Legislators’ case the way they did in the first instance.

The reason or rationale behind this position in the above Stanbic IBTC case was graphically painted by Oputa, JSC, in Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274, 275, inter alia, thus: “We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions, similarly, the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes.

When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled. This court has the power to overrule itself (and had done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error.” (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, where a judgment of a court was obtained without jurisdiction; or is tainted with illegality; or was obtained by fraud, the court surely has the vires, constitutional power and jurisdiction to revisit such judgement, even if time had since elapsed. This is because time cannot and does not run against illegality or fraud. A party cannot be allowed to benefit, or continue to benefit from the product of its own illegality and void conduct. This position was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Nwosu v. APP & Ors (2020) 16 NWLR (PT 1749) 28, where it held thus, through many of its justices as follows: Per Eko, JSC: “No person is allowed to benefit from illegality as illegality confers no right”

Per Peter-Odili, JSC: “It is difficult in the light of the damming facts well pushed in this appeal wherein illegality was enthroned to be surveyed into endorsing of such acts and to allow the perpetrator of such profane acts to derive or profit from his own wrong”.

Per Amina Augie, JSC: “The court cannot close its eyes to it (illegality) and allow itself to be used as a tool to perpetuate illegality, in whatever form or guise”

See also the cases of GTB V. Innoson (Nig.) Ltd (2022) LPELR-56657 (SC); Enterprise Bank Ltd v. Aroso & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24720 (SC); Oladosu & Anor v. Olaojoyetan & Anor (2012) LPELR – 8676 (CA) and Eco Bank v. Teak Naturale Investment Ltd & Ors (2017) LPELR – 42389 (CA).

The Court of Appeal which was approached by the grieving PDP Legislators sure had the power and jurisdiction to have calmly looked at and reviewed its judgements which have since been irretrievably punctured by the Nigerian people and the apex court itself (albeit, obiter). It should have meticulously reviewed its earlier judgements, all of which were delivered without following judicial precedents as laid down by the Supreme Court on the very issues dealt with in those appeals. Law is about justice. Being Siamese twins, one without the other is an orphan. The Plateau Legislators’ cases hallmarked a dangerous precedent where neither the law nor justice was followed or attained. The Court of Appeal ought to have seized the opportunity of the fresh application to correct itself. If for nothing else, at least for the sake of posterity, justice, fairplay, equity and good conscience.

I so humbly submit.

PROF MIKE OZEKHOME is a holder of SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC

Opinion

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

Published

7 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

2 weeks 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