Connect with us

Business

Governance Issues Around The 48th AGM of NEM Insurance Plc – Investigation and Outcomes

Published

on

The latest decision by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) on the issues relating to NEM Insurance Plc’s (NEM) 48th Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on Wednesday, 20 June 2018, at the Premier Hotel, Ibadan, Oyo State (Re: SEC Invalidates NEM Insurance Plc’s 48th AGM and Resolutions; Orders Firm to Reconvene Proper AGM) came on the back of another extensive review conducted by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) in October 2018, showing an increased level of co-ordination in the enforcement regime in the Nigerian markets.

The Complaint(s)

Following the completion of the AGM, formal complaints were received from five (5) shareholders of NEM in June and July  2018.

The Issues

The shareholders’ complaints can be broadly categorized into two (2) main areas:

Non-receipt of the Company’s AGM notice within the time (at least twenty-one (21) days) prescribed by Section 217(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (CAMA);

Special resolution proposed and passed at the AGM  to raise additional capital through special/private placement was set at a price below the market price – reversal of the special resolution proposed and passed at the AGM.

Fact Findings

The Notice of AGM was dispatched and delivered to the 1st to 4th Complainants by registered post through a private courier service on 13 June 2018, seven (7) days before the AGM. The proof of delivery was provided.

The Company claimed it dispatched the Notice of AGM to the 5th Complainant via NIPOST on 13 June 2018. The Company did not provide any proof of dispatch or delivery of the Notice to the 5th Complainant.

The Notice of AGM was published in two (2) daily newspapers, Leadership and New Telegraph Newspapers on 30 May 2018. The proof of publication was provided.

A special resolution to raise additional capital through special/private placement was proposed and passed at the AGM.

Relevant Laws and Rules:

The Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Cap C20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004

(i)   Section 217 of CAMA

“217. Length of notice for calling meetings

(1) The notice required for all types of general meetings from the commencement of this Act shall be 21 days from the date on which the notice was sent out.

(2) A general meeting of a company shall, notwithstanding that it is called by a shorter notice than that specified in subsection (1) of this section, be deemed to have been duly called if it is so agreed in the case of‐ (a) a meeting called as the annual general meeting, by all the members entitled to attend and vote thereat; and

(b) any other general meeting, by a majority in number of the members having a right to attend and vote at the meeting, being a majority together holding not less than 95 per cent in nominal value of the shares giving a right to attend and vote at the meeting or, in the case of a company not having a share capital, together representing not less than 95 per cent of the total voting rights at that meeting of all the members.

(ii)  Section 220 of CAMA

“220. Service of Notice

(1) A notice may be given by the company to any member either personally or by sending it by post to him or to his registered address, or (if he has no registered address within Nigeria) to the address, if any, supplied by him to the company for the giving of notice to him.

(2) Where a notice is sent by post, service of the notice shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying, and posting a letter containing the notice, and to have been effected in the case of a notice of a meeting at the expiration of seven days after the letter containing the same is posted, and in any other case at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

(5) “Registered address” means, in the case of a member, any address supplied by him to the company for the giving of notice to him.”

(iii) Section 221 of CAMA

“221. Failure to give notice

(1) Failure to give notice of any meeting to a person entitled to receive it shall invalidate the meeting unless such failure is an accidental omission on the part of the person or persons giving the notice.

(2) Failure to give notice to a person entitled to it due to a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the provisions of this Act, or of the articles, shall not amount to an accidental omission for the purposes of the foregoing subsection.”

(iv) Section 222 of CAMA

“222. Additional notice

In addition to the notice required to be given to those entitled to receive it in accordance with the provisions of this Act, every public company shall, at least 21 days before any general meeting, advertise a notice of such meeting in at least two daily newspapers.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission Consolidated Rules, 2013

(v)  Rule 99(6) of the Securities and Exchange Commission Consolidated Rules, 2013

“99.       Functions

(6)  A Registrar of a public company may dispatch annual reports and notices of general meetings

to shareholders by electronic means.”

(vi) Rule 593 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Consolidated Rules, 2013

“593.     Service of proxy statement and proxy forms

(1)   The registrant shall furnish the proxy statement and proxy form to the shareholder together with the

notice of meeting and annual report twenty one (21) days to the date of the meeting in the case of annual general meeting (A.G.M.).

(2)   Where proxies are solicited at the expense of the company on behalf of the board, proxy forms and materials must be sent to every member of the company entitled to notice of the meeting and to vote by proxy at the meeting.

The Securities and Exchange Commission Code of Corporate Governance for Public Companies, 2011 (vii) Clause 24 of the SEC Code of Corporate Governance for Public Companies, 2011

“24. Notice of Meeting

Notices of general meetings shall be twenty-one (21) days from the date on which the notice was sent out. Companies shall allow at least seven days for service of notice if sent out by post from the day the letter containing the same is posted. The notices should include copies of documents, including annual reports and audited  financial  statements  and  other  information  as  will  enable  members  prepare  adequately  for  the meeting.”

The Rulebook of The Nigerian Stock Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules)

(viii) Rule 19.3, Rules Relating to Board Meetings and General Meetings of Issuers, Rulebook of The Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules)

“Rule 19.3: General Meetings of Members

(a)  Every Issuer shall hold sessions of the general meetings of shareholders or holders of other securities in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap C20 LFN (CAMA) and any other relevant legislation, these Rules and the Issuer’s Articles of Association. The Issuer shall also ensure that shareholders or holders of other securities are allowed to lawfully exercise their rights at the meetings.

(ix) Rule 19.5, Rules Relating to Board Meetings and General Meetings of Issuers, Rulebook of The Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules)

“Rule 19.5: Notice of Meeting

(a) The Board of Directors or Trustees of the Issuer shall give Notice of Meeting as provided in Rule 19.8(c) below, to each security holder to ensure that each security holder has a reasonable opportunity to attend the meeting and exercise his voting rights threat.

(b) The Notice shall state the nature of the meeting, time and venue and shall include a proxy form which shall include clearly worded resolution proposals in order that securities’ holders may be properly guided in casting their votes either for or against each resolution.”

(x)    Rule 19.8, Rules Relating to Board Meetings and General Meetings of Issuers, Rulebook of The Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules)

“(vii) Rule 19.8: Notice to be Displayed on the Website

(c) Issuers  shall ensure that  the Notice of Meeting and the full copy of the Annual Reports  or  any other relevant  documentation  are  dispatched  to  shareholders  or  holders  of  other  securities  and  the  relevant Regulatory authorities at least twenty-one (21) days before the date of the meeting and evidence of postage shall  be  made available  for  inspection by  the Regulators  at  the meeting. Where the notice is personally delivered, evidence of such delivery shall be produced. Issuers shall allow at least five (5) business days for delivery of the Notice of Meeting if sent out by post from the day the letter containing same is posted.”

Findings – Issues

Issue 1: Non-receipt of the Company’s AGM Notice

The Company did not dispatch the Notice of the 48th  AGM and Annual Reports to the shareholders at least 21 days before the date of meeting as prescribed by the CAMA, SEC Rules and the Rulebook of The Exchange.  This action of NEM  violates  Rule  19.8(vii), Rulebook of The Exchange  (Issuers’ Rules)  and Section 217(1) of CAMA stated above.

The shareholders who did not receive the Notice of AGM were not given the opportunity to attend and exercise their voting rights in respect of any of the resolutions passed at the 48th  AGM, including the proposed special resolution to raise additional capital through special/private placement.

Issue  2:  Special  resolution  proposed  and  passed  at  the  AGM  to  raise  additional  capital  through special/private placement at a price below the market price

The Exchange found that the resolution was duly proposed and passed at the AGM.

Issue 3: Reversal of the special resolution proposed and passed at the meeting

The Exchange is not the Competent Authority to invalidate the AGM pursuant to Section 221 of CAMA, for failure to give Notice of the AGM to shareholders. See, Section 221(1) of CAMA cited above. NEM as a listed entity is required to comply with the Rules of The Exchange, in addition to compliance with other relevant legislations and regulations.  For general meetings, Issuers are required to comply with the requirements of The Exchange, CAMA, and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Regulations (SEC Rules) as provided in Rule 19.3 cited above.

The Exchange viewed this act of non-compliance as a corporate governance issue for a listed company which holds the Corporate Governance Rating System (CGRS) certification, and is included in The Exchange’s Corporate Governance Index (CGI), for listed companies.  CGRS  certified companies are required to demonstrate high standards of corporate governance and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  A company’s treatment of its stakeholders, particularly its shareholders, provides incontrovertible evidence of its corporate governance practices. And, the facts in regard to the five complaints considered raise significant questions about the state of corporate governance in NEM.

Sanctions

In view of the above, The Exchange sanctioned NEM pursuant to the provisions of Rule 19.16: Sanctions, Rules Relating to Board Meetings and General Meetings of Issuers, Rulebook of The Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules) which states that:

“(a) Where an Issuer or any of its directors or any of the Trustees of a Bond contravene or fail to adhere to any of these provisions, The Exchange may censure the Issuer and/or the Issuer’s director(s) or the Trustees individually or jointly, either privately or in public.  (b) In the event of breach of any of these Rules, The Exchange shall impose the following penalties: (i) A form of censure which it determines to be appropriate; and (ii) A fine not exceeding fifty per-cent (50%) of the listing fees of the Issuer.”

Thus, the following sanctions were imposed on NEM for contravening Rule 19.8 cited above:

Private  Censure  –  The  Exchange  shall  communicate  directly  with  the  Board  of  Directors  of  NEM Insurance regarding its findings on the complaints; and

A fine of Five Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Five Naira only (N575,505.00), being fifty per-cent (50%) of NEM annual listing fee, on the Company.

NEM is expected to pay the fine of  N575,505.00 to The Exchange on or before close of business on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 to avoid the enforcement of the provisions of Clause 14(d), Appendix III: Form of General Undertaking (Equities), Rulebook of The Exchange, 2015 (Issuers’ Rules), which states that:

“A listed company who contravenes any of the provisions of the Listing Rules and General Undertaking and fails to pay the penalty imposed on it for such contravention on or before the due date shall be liable to a further fine of N300,000.00 in addition to N25,000 per day for the period the violation continues”.

More importantly, NEM is also required to disclose the above contravention and penalty paid in its  Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 December 2018.

Additional Corporate Governance Measures

The Exchange will, as part of its own governance ethos, take steps to communicate its findings to the Steering Board of the Corporate Governance Rating System (CGRS), which may decide to suspend, withdraw or do nothing to the CGRS rating of NEM.  Please be advised that the Steering Board’s decision may affect NEM’s status as a component of the Corporate Governance Index of The Exchange.

Conclusion

NEM is one of the best performing stock in its sector on the bourse, and it is expected that lessons will (ought to) be learned from this in the future; even as it complies with the decision of the SEC communicated today,  comply with all requirements of The Exchange and that of other relevant laws and applicable rules.

The market looks forward to listed companies willing to work on their governance issues and help deliver a fair, efficient and transparent market for all investors. This is a teachable moment for NEM.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Business

MREIF is Better: FirstBank’s Mortgage Loan Is the Game-Changer for Home Ownership in Nigeria

Published

on

FirstBank Set to Launch Tailored Financial Services for Blind and Physically Challenged Customers  

MREIF is Better: FirstBank’s Mortgage Loan Is the Game-Changer for Home Ownership in Nigeria

 

 

 

Anyone who has tried to get a loan to buy a house in Nigeria knows the drill: endless forms, property valuation, and eventual down payment of a minimum 25% or more on the property. Sometimes, interest rates could go as high as 30% per annum, while the typical loan limit is N50 million.

 

 

 

Now, FirstBank is making homeownership more attractive.

 

 

 

FirstBank, in partnership with the Ministry of Finance Incorporated (MOFI), has introduced the MREIF Home Loan. MREIF loan is a game-changer, offering a single-digit interest rate of 9.75% per annum, with a loan amount of up to ₦100 million and a repayment period of up to 20 years. This is perfect for salaried individuals, including Nigerians in the diaspora, looking to purchase homes in approved locations.

 

The MREIF loan stands out with its lower interest rate, higher loan amount, and flexible equity contribution as low as 10%. This makes it an attractive option for those seeking affordable homeownership.

 

 

 

You are one quick decision away from being a landlord.

 

 

 

If you’ve been waiting for the right time to buy a home, FirstBank’s MREIF Home Loan is the smartest route to owning property in Nigeria today. Visit the FirstBank website https://www.firstbanknigeria.com/personal/loans/mreif-home-loan/ to get started.

Continue Reading

Business

Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty

Published

on

Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty

BY BLAISE UDUNZEq

 

With the chanting of the ‘Renewed Hope’, it appears to be Uhuru in Nigeria, following the recent World Economic Outlook presented by the International Monetary Fund, which projected that Nigeria’s economy would expand by 4.1 percent in 2026. Though this specifically shows an economy faster than economies like the United States and the United Kingdom, as it handed the administration of President Bola Tinubu a powerful narrative. No doubt, the projection happens to be a narrative of progress, of reform, of a nation supposedly turning the corner after years of instability and setting the kind of moment that reassures investors, quiets critics and signals competence.

 

But once its statistical sheen is put aside, the weight of reality takes center stage. The truth is while Nigeria may be growing on paper, it is simultaneously shrinking and does not in any way reflect the lived experience of its citizens, as the populace can attest to. With the current lived experience, nowhere is this contradiction more glaring than in the widening gulf between macroeconomic projections and the daily economic suffering of over 200 million people.

 

The truth is uncomfortable, but it must be said plainly that a country where poverty is deepening, inflation is persistent, debt is rising, and basic survival is becoming more difficult cannot meaningfully claim economic success, no matter what the growth figures suggest.

The most damning evidence against the “fastest-growing economy” narrative as enumerated by the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala comes not from opposition voices or political critics, but this time it is coming from the World Bank itself. Alarming to this is that according to its latest Nigeria Development Update, poverty in the country rose to 63 percent barely months back, translating to roughly 140 million Nigerians living below the poverty line. This is not just a statistic; it is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in real time, which in a real sense calls for quick interventions.

 

Even more troubling is the trend. Poverty has not plateaued; it is accelerating, worsening and not stablising at all. From 56 percent in 2023 to 61 percent in 2024, and now 63 percent in 2025, the trajectory is unmistakable, as can be seen the data shows a clear upward trend over time that calls for concern. And projections from PwC suggest that the numbers will climb even higher, with an estimated 141 million Nigerians expected to be poor in 2026.

 

It would surprise many that these figures expose a fundamental contradiction; it is a total irony that an economy is growing while its people are becoming poorer, hence, while no one would hesitate to say that the type of growth taking place is flawed. Well, without jumping to a hasty conclusion, the answer lies in that growth. To say that the economic growth taking place is imbalanced, it is uneven, exclusionary, and not absolutely linked or largely disconnected from the sectors that sustain the majority of Nigerians. Growth driven by services and capital-intensive industries does little for a population whose livelihoods depend heavily on agriculture and informal enterprise. When growth bypasses the poor, it ceases to be development and becomes mere arithmetic.

 

The government’s defence often leans on the argument that inflation is easing and that reforms are beginning to stabilise the economy. But even this claim is increasingly fragile, as reported that the recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics shows that inflation has begun to rise again. This now shows that the headline inflation is ticking up to 15.38 percent in March 2026, alongside a sharp month-on-month increase of 4.18 percent. The pain Consumer Price Index climbed to 135.4, underscoring sustained pressure on household spending.

 

Another aspect that raises further questions is that the most critical component for ordinary Nigerians, which is the food inflation skyrocketed to 14.31 percent, with also a similar month-on-month surge. It must be made known that these are not just numbers on a chart; they represent the escalating cost of survival, mostly for the common man. The ripple effect of this, which is yet to change, is that families are compelled to pay more for basic meals, more for transportation, and more for the essentials of daily life.

 

Noteworthy is that even when inflation showed signs of moderation in previous months, the fact is that it did little to reverse the damage already inflicted. The World Bank has been clear on this point when it said that household incomes have not kept pace with price increases. The underlying point is that the earlier spikes in inflation eroded purchasing power to such an extent that any subsequent easing has been insufficient to restore real income levels and this is where the figures churned out were misleading.

 

This explains the inconsistency at the heart of Nigeria’s economy, where nominal indicators are improving, but real conditions are deteriorating. Nigerians are earning more in absolute terms but are able to afford less. This is further confirmed by data showing that while nominal household spending increased significantly, real consumption declined, while it would be said that people are spending more money, but they are consuming less. That is not growth; but the right word for it is economic suffocation.

 

The structural consequences of ongoing reforms compound the situation. The removal of fuel subsidies, which was the gift to Nigerians for electing President Tinubu and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market were framed as necessary steps toward long-term stability. And in theory, they are defensible policies. But in practice, the result has been an extraordinary cost-of-living crisis, especially for the larger section of struggling Nigerians.

 

Speaking of the fuel subsidy removal, which has driven up transportation costs across the country, affecting both urban commuters and rural farmers, as the pain has been further intensified by the geopolitical conflict in the Middle East. The second policy shift which was the exchange rate liberalisation, has led to currency depreciation with the experiences biting hard across board, making imported goods more expensive and fueling inflationary pressures. These policy choices, which were perhaps deemed necessary, and without further ado have imposed immediate and severe burdens on households that were already vulnerable.

 

The International Monetary Fund has warned that these pressures are far from over. Rising global tensions, particularly in the Middle East, are pushing up the cost of energy, food, and transportation. For Nigerians, especially those at the lower rung in society, this translates into even higher living costs and deeper economic strain to contend with.

 

In this context, the government’s insistence on celebrating growth projections begins to appear not just disconnected, but insensitive. Because for millions of Nigerians, the economy is not an abstract concept measured in percentages. It is a daily struggle defined by whether they can afford food, transport, and shelter.

 

Compounding these challenges is Nigeria’s growing debt burden. Unexpectedly, public debt has climbed to over N159 trillion, with projections indicating a continued rise in the coming years because of the government’s appetite for borrowing. While the debt-to-GDP ratio may appear moderate compared to global averages, this comparison is totally misleading. The question is why the debt is ballooning when Nigeria’s revenue base is narrow, heavily reliant on oil, and constrained by a large informal sector that contributes little to tax income.

 

The current position of things is that debt servicing consumes a disproportionate share of government revenue, leaving limited fiscal space for investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social protection, which has continued to expose the majority of Nigerians to untold hardship. It is a precarious position, one where the government is borrowing more while having less capacity to translate that borrowing into meaningful development outcomes and the part that is also critical is that Nigeria’s rising debt profile is entering discomforting quarters, as concerns shift from the sheer size of borrowings to the growing risks associated with refinancing existing obligations.

 

Even more troubling are the emerging questions around fiscal transparency and governance. Only recently, there were allegations by Peter Obi on the missing N34 trillion in federation revenue that remains unaccounted. This, according to him, has intensified concerns about systemic leakages and institutional corruption. The fact is, even though these claims remain contested, they resonate deeply in a country where public trust in government financial management is already fragile and has remained a subject of discussion for many Nigerians.

 

The truth is that if even a fraction of such resources were effectively managed and invested, the impact on infrastructure, social services, and poverty reduction could be transformative but this is yet to be embarked upon. Instead, the persistence of such allegations reinforces the perception of an economy where wealth exists but is inaccessible to the majority, which brings to bare if there will ever be a respite in a situation like this.

 

Adding another layer to this complexity is the excessive contradiction of oil revenue. With global crude prices that were once sold above $113 per barrel and currently hovering around $85-$90, which is still far exceeding Nigeria’s budget benchmark, and the country stands to hugely benefit from a significant windfall, as was the case in the past. You know that history is more revealing than ever; it suggests that such opportunities are often squandered.

 

Analysts repeatedly have continued to warn that without disciplined fiscal management, these revenues may be absorbed by debt servicing or recurrent expenditure rather than being invested in productive sectors. The risk is that Nigeria once again experiences a boom without transformation, a cycle that has defined its economic history for decades.

 

Meanwhile, the irony in all of this is that, despite having plenty, every day Nigerian continues to bear the brunt of systemic inefficiencies. As the people bear the brunt, the country’s transportation costs are rising, food prices remain volatile, and access to basic services is increasingly strained, while the rural areas are not left out of the equation, as insecurity continues to disrupt agricultural production. This has further constrained food supply and driven up prices. In urban centres, the cost of living is pushing more households into financial distress.

 

The cumulative, as well as the ripple effects of these pressures is a society under strain. Lest we mistake this, economic hardship is not just a financial issue; it has social and psychological consequences, while unbeknownst to many, its resultant effect fuels frustration, erodes trust in institutions, which also leads to fertile ground for instability.

 

What makes the current situation particularly troubling is the widening disconnect between official narratives and lived reality. There are two instances in which it was noted that, on the one hand, the government points to IMF projections and macroeconomic indicators as evidence of progress. On the other hand, citizens experience rising poverty, declining purchasing power, and limited opportunities. Another good example stems from when President Tinubu declared in September of last year that the federal government had met its 2025 non-oil income goal by August.

 

However, the former Minister of Finance, Wale Edun stated that the Federal Government lacked sufficient funds to appropriately fund its capital budget during a public hearing at the National Assembly late last year. The minister stated that in order to pay the N54.9 trillion “budget of restoration,” which was intended to stabilize the economy, ensure peace, and create prosperity, the federal government had estimated N40.8 trillion in income for 2025.

These two reports sounded and appeared contradictory and it probably was first of many factors responsible for the fallout.

 

This disconnect is more than a communication gap, it is a credibility crisis. When people’s lived experiences contradict official claims, trust erodes. And without trust, even well-intentioned policies struggle to gain acceptance.

 

The claim that Nigeria is growing faster than advanced economies may be technically accurate, and perhaps it must be seen as an absolute insult to Nigerians and it must be noted that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the country’s core challenges. This key fact must be taken into cognizance that growth rates, in isolation, do not capture the quality, inclusiveness, or sustainability of economic progress and this is because they do not reflect whether growth is creating jobs, reducing poverty, or improving living standards. Note that in Nigeria’s case, the evidence suggests otherwise, in which the reality continues to dominate outcomes and this is not but the fact.

 

For growth to be meaningful, it must translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives. At this point, it is necessary to understand that it must create jobs, raise incomes, and expand opportunities. Another important factor that must not be left out is that it must be inclusive, reaching not just the top tiers of society but the millions at the base of the economic pyramid. At present, Nigeria falls short on all these counts.

 

The path forward requires more than optimistic projections and reform rhetoric. It demands a fundamental rethinking of economic priorities. Policies must be designed not just for macroeconomic stability but for human welfare and while investment must be directed toward sectors that generate employment and improve productivity, particularly agriculture and manufacturing. Social safety nets must be strengthened to protect the most vulnerable from economic shocks which has yet to be considered by the government of the day.

 

Equally important is the need for transparency and accountability in public finance. Without trust in how resources are managed, even the most ambitious economic plans will struggle to gain legitimacy.

Nigeria is not lacking in potential and this is one of the ironies of it all since it has a young population, abundant natural resources, and a dynamic entrepreneurial spirit. But potential, without effective governance and inclusive policies, remains unrealised.

 

The uncomfortable reality is that Nigeria is at risk of normalising a dangerous illusion which connotes that growth on paper is equivalent to progress in practice. The truth is that it is not and cannot be contested. And until this illusion and deception is confronted, the gap between economic narratives and human realities will continue to widen.

 

In the end, the true measure of an economy is not how fast it grows, but how well it serves its people. By that standard, Nigeria’s current trajectory raises serious questions, take it or leave it. Because in a nation where over 140 million people live in poverty, where inflation continues to erode incomes, where debt is rising and where basic survival is becoming more difficult, the claim of being a “fast-growing economy” is not just misleading. Yes, it is a mirage!

 

And for millions of Nigerians struggling to get by each day, it is a mirage that offers no relief, no hope, and no future.

 

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Business

WFA APPOINTS GLOBAL BRAND EXECUTIVES TO EXPANDED LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

Published

on

WFA APPOINTS GLOBAL BRAND EXECUTIVES TO EXPANDED LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

 

STOCKHOLM — The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) has announced the appointment of senior executives from leading global brands to its Executive Committee, in a move aimed at strengthening its global influence and industry coordination.

The appointments were unveiled during the WFA Global Marketer Week held in Stockholm.

The new members, drawn from top multinational corporations, include executives from Driscoll’s, Haleon, IKEA and Nissan. They join an already influential body comprising marketing and corporate affairs leaders from major companies such as Best Buy, Danone, Diageo, Grab, Kenvue and Tata Group.

Also joining the Executive Committee are representatives of key advertiser bodies, including Josh Faulks, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Association of National Advertisers; Simon Michaelides, Director General of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers; and O’tega Ogra, Vice President of the Advertisers Association of Nigeria and Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria on Digital Communications, Engagement and New Media Strategy.

WFA President David Wheldon and Deputy President Philip Myers of Ferrero will continue in their roles, alongside all regional vice presidents.

The newly appointed members are:

Jiunn Shih, Global Chief Marketing Officer, Driscoll’s

Silas-Lewis Meilus, Global Head of Media Operations, Haleon

Joel Renkema, Global Head of Insights, IKEA

José Román, Corporate Executive, Global Sales and Marketing, Nissan

Josh Faulks, CEO, AANA

Simon Michaelides, Director General, ISBA

O’tega Ogra, Vice President, ADVAN

Industry observers say the expanded committee reflects WFA’s commitment to deeper global collaboration and stronger representation across regions and sectors within the marketing and advertising ecosystem.

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending