Connect with us

Feature/OPED

Dealing With Corporate Governance Challenges in Business

Published

on

By Nonso Obikili

It is in the interest of the regulators whose job it is to ensure that businesses, especially publicly listed ones, maintain good corporate governance codes, as businesses tend to learn from each other. If one business gets away with sharp practices, then others try their hand at it as well.

Governance is a fundamental part of any functioning entity. The rules and systems which govern how entities function are perhaps the most fundamental thing for survival. Rules and systems that incentivise good decision making generally lead to better performing entities, while rules that incentivise bad behaviour tend to lead to breakdown. Most understand the importance of these rules and systems when we talk about governance with respect to countries, or states. In that instance, fair and enforced rules with proper checks and balances typically lead to countries that make better decisions and end up better off, whereas the opposite of that leads to countries that end up as basket cases.

However, governance rules don’t only apply to countries or states, but to businesses as well. The difference being that for businesses, instead of having presidents, national assemblies, and citizens, you have chief executive officers (CEOs), boards, and shareholders. Regardless, the principles of good governance still apply. Businesses which follow a good set of rules and systems of good behaviour tend to perform better than those that don’t.

Good corporate governance rules help ensure that businesses work in the interest of their shareholders, and don’t take actions that are not in the interest of the business. Good corporate governance rules also try to ensure that transitions within the company, such as in cases of a change of ownership structure, do not impede the normal functioning of the business. And, of course, any good system of rules has to come hand-in-hand with a system of enforcement. For businesses, such enforcement is typically done by regulators who try to make sure that rules are obeyed and penalties imposed on those who break them.

Unfortunately, as most Nigerians can attest to, sometimes the decision makers don’t always act in the interest of those who they should leading. Presidents and national assemblies don’t always act in the interest of their citizens and CEOs and board members don’t always act in the interest of their shareholders. And as you can probably guess, one common reason for this is to remain in power. Presidents want to remain in power. CEOs want to remain in power. Board members want to remain in power and sometimes act against the interest of their shareholders to do so.

One common way CEOs and board members try to stay in power is by a process called stock dilution. You see, if a board wants to act against the interests of shareholders, then one way of doing this is to change the structure of the business so that shareholders you don’t like, end up owning less of the company and having fewer voting rights consequently.

For example, if a board effectively owns 25 percent of a business and therefore has 25 percent voting rights and wants to take the business in one direction, but there are other shareholders who own maybe 40 percent who don’t particularly like that course of action, then the 40 percent can effectively block the 25 percent. A board which wants to force through its course against the will of other shareholders can create and sell more outstanding shares through private placements to people who they know will support them, thereby increasing their effective stake and simultaneously reducing the ownership shares of those shareholders who don’t support that course.

I know what you are thinking. Surely this can’t be right, and you are right. According to the rules, it shouldn’t be that easy. First, according to most corporate governance rules, boards are not allowed to organise private placements without the approval of shareholders. There are valid reasons why a company would want to sell new shares privately, of course, but those are typically only when they are desperate for new capital. But if boards need shareholder approval for this kind of dilution, then why don’t the shareholders who are at risk of their shares being diluted prevent this from happening? Well the unhappy shareholders can only prevent this kind of thing from happening if they know where the meetings are taking place. If they are systematically excluded from the general meetings, then they cannot act or vote against such actions.

This phenomenon repeats itself across many countries with weak corporate governance rules and enforcement and appears to be repeating itself here in Nigeria in the case of NEM Insurance. NEM apparently organised an annual general meeting, which some shareholders were not told about, at least not with the mandatory 21 days’ notice. At the AGM, the shareholders present approved a plan for a new private placement in which shares were to be sold at below the market value of the shares that are publicly traded on the stock exchange. NEM has been one of the better performing insurance companies in recent times, hence it was not clear if there was any emergency cash need. And of course, some shareholders appeared to have been systematically excluded from the AGM by not being notified on time, and therefore were not able to vote against such a plan. As expected, those shareholders are now up in arms fighting against what looks like a brazen attempt to dilute their stock.

This kind of shareholder infighting is obviously not good for the company. It has the potential to derail the focus that companies, especially publicly listed ones, need to run efficient operations and it casts a cloud over the long-term viability of the business. If board members can implement such an operation, then who is to say they won’t do similar things to future investors? It is in the interest of all shareholders to resolve these issues by following the properly laid out rules and guidelines and to resolve them quickly without putting the overall health of the business at risk.

It is also in the interest of the regulators whose job it is to ensure that businesses, especially publicly listed ones, maintain good corporate governance codes, as businesses tend to learn from each other. If one business gets away with sharp practices, then other try their hand at it as well. If everybody starts engaging in sharp practices, then the overall health of the system suffers. Perhaps the regulators, who are the enforcers of good corporate governance, need to take a closer look at this and set a good example.

Nonso Obikili is an economist currently roaming somewhere between Nigeria and South Africa.

The opinion expressed in this article is the author’s and do not reflect the views of his employers.

Dipo Olowookere is a journalist based in Nigeria that has passion for reporting business news stories. At his leisure time, he watches football and supports 3SC of Ibadan. Mr Olowookere can be reached via [email protected]

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

Guide to Employee Training That Reinforces Workplace Safety Standards

Published

on

Workplace Safety Standards

Workplace safety is not sustained by policies alone. It is built through consistent training that shapes daily behaviour, decision-making, and accountability across every level of an organisation. When employees understand not only what safety rules exist but why they matter, they are far more likely to follow them and intervene when risks arise. Effective safety-focused training protects workers, strengthens operations, and reduces costly incidents that disrupt productivity and morale.

As industries evolve and workplaces become more complex, employee training must go beyond basic orientation sessions. Reinforcing safety standards requires an ongoing, structured approach that adapts to new risks, changing regulations, and real-world job demands. A thoughtful training strategy helps create a culture where safety is a shared responsibility rather than a checklist item.

Establishing a Foundation of Safety Awareness

The first purpose of workplace safety training is awareness. Employees cannot avoid hazards they do not understand. Comprehensive training introduces common workplace risks, clarifies acceptable behaviour, and sets expectations for personal responsibility. This foundational knowledge empowers employees to recognise unsafe conditions before incidents occur.

Safety awareness training should be tailored to the specific environment in which employees work. Office settings require education on ergonomics, electrical safety, and emergency evacuation procedures, while industrial workplaces demand detailed instruction on machinery risks, protective equipment, and material handling. When training reflects actual job conditions, employees are more engaged and better equipped to apply what they learn.

Clear communication is essential during this stage. Using plain language and real examples helps employees connect training concepts to daily tasks. When safety awareness becomes part of how employees think and talk about their work, it begins to shape behaviour consistently across the organisation.

Integrating Safety Training into Daily Operations

Safety training is most effective when it is integrated into everyday work rather than treated as a one-time event. Ongoing reinforcement ensures that safety standards remain top of mind as tasks, equipment, and responsibilities change. Regular training sessions create opportunities to refresh knowledge, address new risks, and correct unsafe habits before they lead to injury.

Incorporating short safety discussions into team meetings helps normalise these conversations. Supervisors play a critical role by modelling safe behaviour and reinforcing expectations during routine interactions. When employees see safety emphasised alongside productivity goals, it reinforces the message that both are equally important.

Hands-on training also strengthens retention. Demonstrations, practice scenarios, and real-time feedback allow employees to apply safety principles in controlled settings. This experiential approach builds confidence and reduces hesitation when employees encounter hazards in real situations.

Aligning Training with Regulatory Requirements

Workplace safety training must align with applicable regulations and industry standards to ensure legal compliance and worker protection. Laws and regulations change frequently, making it essential for organisations to keep training materials updated. Failure to do so can expose employees to unnecessary risk and organisations to legal consequences.

Training programs should clearly explain relevant safety regulations and how they apply to specific roles. Employees are more likely to comply when rules are presented as practical safeguards rather than abstract mandates. Documenting training completion and maintaining accurate records also demonstrates organisational commitment to compliance.

Many organisations rely on support from compliance training companies to navigate complex regulatory landscapes and design programs that meet both legal and operational needs. These partnerships can help ensure training remains accurate, consistent, and aligned with evolving requirements without overwhelming internal resources.

Encouraging Participation and Accountability

Effective safety training depends on active participation rather than passive attendance. Employees should be encouraged to ask questions, share concerns, and contribute insights based on their experiences. When workers feel heard, they become more invested in maintaining a safe environment.

Creating accountability is equally important. Training should clarify individual responsibilities and outline the consequences of ignoring safety standards. Employees need to understand that safety is not optional or secondary to performance goals. Reinforcement from leadership ensures that unsafe behaviour is addressed consistently and constructively.

Peer accountability also strengthens safety culture. When training emphasises teamwork and shared responsibility, employees are more likely to watch out for one another and intervene when they see risky behaviour. This collective approach reduces reliance on supervision alone and builds resilience across the workforce.

Adapting Training for Long-Term Effectiveness

Workplace safety training must evolve alongside organisational growth and workforce changes. New hires, role transitions, and technological updates introduce risks that require refreshed instruction. Periodic assessments help identify gaps in knowledge and opportunities for improvement.

Data from incident reports, near misses, and employee feedback provides valuable insight into training effectiveness. Adjusting content based on real outcomes ensures that training remains relevant and impactful. Organisations that treat training as a dynamic process are better equipped to respond to emerging risks.

Long-term effectiveness also depends on reinforcement beyond formal sessions. Visual reminders, updated procedures, and accessible reporting tools help sustain awareness. When safety standards are supported through multiple channels, employees receive consistent cues that reinforce training messages daily.

Conclusion

Reinforcing workplace safety standards through employee training requires intention, consistency, and adaptability. Training that builds awareness, integrates into daily operations, aligns with regulations, and encourages accountability creates a safer environment for everyone involved. When employees understand their role in maintaining safety, they are more confident, engaged, and prepared to prevent harm.

A strong training program is not simply a compliance exercise. It is an investment in people and performance. Organisations that prioritise meaningful safety training protect their workforce while fostering trust, stability, and long-term success.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Debt is Dragging Nigeria’s Future Down

Published

on

more concessional debt

By Abba Dukawa 

A quiet fear is spreading across the hearts of Nigerians—one that grows heavier with every new headline about rising debt. It is no longer just numbers on paper; it feels like a shadow stretching over the nation’s future. The reality is stark and unsettling: nearly 50% of Nigeria’s revenue is now used to service debt. That is not just unsustainable—it is suffocating.

Behind these figures lies a deeper tragedy. Millions of Nigerians are trapped in what experts call “Multidimensional Poverty,” struggling daily for dignity and survival, while a privileged few continue to live in comfort, untouched by the hardship tightening around the nation. The contrast is painful, and the silence around it is even louder.

Since assuming office, Bola Ahmed Tinubu has embarked on an aggressive borrowing path, presenting it as a necessary step to revive the economy, rebuild infrastructure, and stabilise key sectors.

Between 2023 and 2026, billions of dollars have been secured or proposed in foreign loans. On paper, it is a strategy of hope. But in the hearts of many Nigerians, it feels like a gamble with consequences yet to unfold.

The numbers are staggering. A borrowing plan exceeding $21 billion, backed by the National Assembly, alongside additional billions in loans and grants, signals a government determined to keep spending and building. Another $6.9 billion facility follows closely behind. These are not just financial decisions; they are commitments that will echo into generations yet unborn.

And so, the questions refuse to go away. Who will bear this burden? Who will repay these debts when the time comes? Will it not fall on ordinary Nigerians already stretched thin to carry the weight of decisions they never made?

There is a growing fear that the nation may be walking into a future where its people become strangers in their own land, bound by obligations to distant creditors.

Even more troubling is the sense that something is not adding up. The removal of fuel subsidy was meant to free up resources, to create breathing room for meaningful development.

But where are the results? Why does it feel like sacrifice has not translated into relief? The silence surrounding these questions breeds suspicion, and suspicion slowly erodes trust.  As of December 31, 2025, Nigeria’s public debt has risen to N159.28 trillion, according to the Debt Management Office.

The numbers keep climbing, but for many citizens, life keeps declining. This disconnect is what hurts the most. Borrowing, in itself, is not the enemy. Nations borrow to grow, to build, to invest in their future. But borrowing without visible progress, without accountability, without compassion for the people, it begins to feel less like strategy and more like a slow descent.

If these borrowed funds are truly building roads, schools, hospitals, and opportunities, then Nigerians deserve to see it, to feel it, to live it. But if they are funding excess, waste, or luxury, then this path is not just dangerous—it is devastating.

Nigeria’s growing loan profile is a double-edged sword. It can either accelerate development or deepen economic challenges. The key issue is not just borrowing, but what the country does with the money. Strong governance, transparency, and investment in productive sectors will determine whether these loans become a foundation for growth or a long-term liability. Because in the end, debt is not just an economic issue. It is a moral one. And if care is not taken, the price Nigeria will pay may not just be financial—it may be the future of its people.

Dukawa writes from Kano and can be reached at [email protected]

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Power Illusion: Why 6,000MW Is Not An Achievement

Published

on

Nigeria Electricity Act 2023

By Isah Kamisu Madachi

For decades, Nigeria has been called the Giant of Africa. The question no one in government wants to answer is why a giant cannot keep the lights on.

Nigeria sits on the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, holds the continent’s most populous nation at over 220 million people, and commands the fourth largest GDP on the continent at roughly $252 billion. It possesses vast deposits of solid minerals, a fintech ecosystem that accounts for 28% of all fintech companies on the African continent, and a diaspora that remits billions of dollars annually.

If potential were electricity, Nigeria would have been powering half the world. Instead, an immediate former minister is boasting about 6,000 megawatts.

Adebayo Adelabu resigned as Minister of Power on April 22, 2026, citing his ambition to contest the Oyo State governorship election. In his resignation letter, he listed among his achievements that peak generation had increased to over 6,000 megawatts during his tenure, supported by the integration of the Zungeru Hydropower Plant. It was presented as a great crowning legacy. The claim deserves scrutiny, and the numbers deserve context.

To begin with, the context. Ghana, Nigeria’s neighbour in West Africa, has a national electricity access rate of 85.9%, with 74% access in rural areas and 94% in urban areas. Kenya, with a 71.4% national electricity access rate, including 62.7% in rural areas, leads East Africa. Nigeria, by contrast, recorded an electricity access rate of just 61.2 per cent as of 2023, according to the World Bank. This is not a distant or poorer country outperforming Nigeria. Ghana’s GDP stands at approximately $113 billion, less than half of Nigeria’s. Kenya’s economy is around $141 billion. Ethiopia, which has invested massively in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and is already exporting electricity to neighbouring countries, has a GDP of roughly $126 billion. All three are doing more with far less.

Now to examine the 6,000-megawatt, Daily Trust obtained electricity generation data from the Association of Power Generation Companies and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, covering quarterly performance from 2023 to 2025 and monthly data from January to March 2026. The data shows that in 2023, peak generation was approximately 5,000 megawatts; in 2024, it reached approximately 5,528 megawatts; in 2025, it ranged between 5,300 and 5,801 megawatts; and by March 2026, available capacity had declined to approximately 4,089 megawatts. The grid never recorded a verified peak of 6,000 megawatts or higher. Adelabu had, in fact, set the 6,000-megawatt target publicly on at least three separate occasions, missing each deadline, and later admitted the target was not achieved, attributing the failure to vandalism of key transmission infrastructure.

In February 2026, Nigeria’s national grid produced an average available capacity of 4,384 megawatts, the lowest monthly average since June 2024. For a country with over 220 million people, this means electricity supply remains far below national demand, with the grid delivering only about 32 per cent of its theoretical installed capacity of approximately 13,000 megawatts. To put that in sharper comparison: in 2018, 48 sub-Saharan African countries, home to nearly one billion people, produced about the same amount of electricity as Spain, a country of 45 million. Nigeria, the continent’s most resource-rich large economy, is a significant part of that embarrassing equation.

The tragedy here is not just technical. It is a governance failure with compounding human costs. An economy that cannot provide reliable electricity cannot competitively manufacture goods, cannot industrialise at scale, cannot attract the volume of foreign direct investment its endowments warrant, and cannot build the digital infrastructure that would allow it to lead on artificial intelligence, data governance, and the emerging critical minerals economy where Africa’s next great opportunity lies. Countries with a fraction of Nigeria’s mineral wealth and human capital are already debating those frontiers. Nigeria is still campaigning on megawatts.

What a departing minister should be able to say, given Nigeria’s endowments, is not that peak generation touched 6,000 megawatts at some unverified moment. He should be saying that Nigeria now generates reliably above 15,000 megawatts, that rural electrification has crossed 70 per cent, and that the country is on a credible trajectory toward the kind of energy sufficiency that unlocks industrial growth. That is the standard Nigeria’s size and resources demand. Anything below it is not an achievement. It is an apology dressed in a press release.

The power sector has received billions of dollars in investment across multiple administrations. The 2013 privatisation exercise, the Presidential Power Initiative, the Electricity Act of 2023, and successive reform promises have produced a sector that still, in 2026, cannot guarantee eight hours of reliable supply to the average Nigerian household. That a minister exits that ministry citing a megawatt figure that fact-checkers have shown was never actually reached, and that even if reached would be unworthy of celebration given Nigeria’s potential, captures the full depth of the problem. The ambition is too small. The accountability is too thin. And the country deserves better from those who are privileged to manage its extraordinary, squandered potential.

Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending