Business
NEM Insurance Plc’s 48th AGM and Associated Governance Issues
By: Nonso Okpala
A visionary and serial investor. Managing Director/CEO of VFD Group Ltd and Father-In-Chief.
An integral component of the long-term strategy of any company is corporate governance, epitomized by transparency and accountability. By extension, it is also the single most important means of sustaining the vibrancy and relevance of any capital market in the world. Furthermore, it has been observed that regulated markets with that adhere to best corporate governance practices have attracted and retained the confidence of investors, local and foreign alike.
As the CEO of VFD Group Limited, a company implementing a long-term investment strategy in the financial services industry, I basically assess companies on three cardinal points. First, the presence of a visionary and selfless leader as espoused by Jim Collins in his book, “Good to Great”. I also look for companies that have strategically positioned themselves within the context of their operating economy. These are companies that have developed a niche, either by way of technology, regulations, efficiency, etc., and established a moat around their business, as a barrier against competitors. The last cardinal point I consider is the company’s adherence to best practice in corporate governance, regardless of the local governance standards or regulatory requirements.
In the course of our operations, we have invested in a few listed companies — despite being mainly focused on private investment — and we intend to increase our capital allocation to this class of investment. One of our early investment picks was NEM Insurance Plc. The company had been a diamond in the rough for years with its market price then below N1. However, our valuation of the company, on a futuristic earning basis, was conservatively about N4 per share. This valuation has subsequently been validated by market trends; as at 21st June 2018, the market price of the stock was N3.04. We invested in the company based on our confidence in the long-term prospects of the company and its high score on our three-assessment parameters (i.e. strong leadership, strategic positioning and best practice in corporate governance) particularly the first two parameters.
NEM Insurance has a visionary leader, Tope Smart. He stands out as an extraordinary leader and is remarkably humble at it. He took on a struggling company in 2007 and bootstrapped it into one of the top five insurance companies in the industry. The company has doubled shareholders’ funds in the last five years and consistently paid dividends over the stated period. He has also built a team of remarkable lieutenants who rank as the best in the industry on a cost basis consideration.
As a result of their strategic positioning within their operating economy, the company not only enjoys the insurance regulatory environment, but has further enhanced its economic moat via efficient performance in a sector that is spectacularly known for inefficiency and poor regulatory compliance.
Unfortunately, it appears that the company is not nearly as strong on governance practices, relative to its stellar performance on the other two counts as stated above. I will elucidate with the organization of the company’s purported 2018 Annual General Meeting (AGM).
As a background, the Directors of the company collectively own less than 23.73% of the company’s issued shares. 22.98% of the 23.73% of the shares attributed to all Directors are held by four Directors (the “ruling 4”) out of ten Directors (source: NEM 2017 Annual Report & Accounts). On closer examination, the situation gets even more interesting. The same audited financial statements reveal that only 16 shareholders, inclusive of the “ruling 4” Directors, have up to 50m shares each and this group of 16 shareholders collectively controls 52.11% of the company’s issued shares. The implication is that there are 12 shareholders who collectively control 29.13% of the company’s issued shares that are not included in the management of the company. VFD Group is one of the 12 shareholders, with a 2.11% stake. In recent times, we have made efforts to identify the other 11 shareholders and observed a trend of exclusion of these shareholders from the activities of the company. For instance, as a run up to the 2018 AGM of the company, most of these shareholders did not receive notice of the meeting, the proposed special resolutions, proxy forms and audited financial statements as required by CAMA. This is extremely suspicious, particularly if one considers the special resolutions proposed for consideration and approval at the purported AGM.
First, special resolutions are usually passed by 75% of the votes of shareholders present and voting in an AGM. In the case of NEM, none of these resolutions can be passed if the 12 excluded shareholders were present and voted against the resolutions. It will be mathematically impossible because if all shareholders are in attendance, the 12 shareholders would represent 29.13% of the possible votes. This will preclude the possibility of achieving the 75% approval that is required for the resolution. This is further compounded by the fact that 100% attendance of its shareholders in NEM’s AGM is impossible. Thus, the only way to assure the passing of such resolutions (if management is not sure of the position of the 12 shareholders) is to tactically exclude them so as to ensure victory if a poll is conducted.
I am certain the question running through your head is, why go through all of these, at the risk of regulatory sanctions? Why risk the company’s reputation and particularly jeopardize the otherwise stellar achievements and track record of the Group Managing Director? The answer is simple: the company is run by a minority group of shareholders, “the ruling 4” Directors, who want to secure their hold on the company, at all costs.
The Directors, at the purported AGM, sought a resolution to issue 1.056bn shares of the company by way of private placement, at a price of N2.50. Looking closely at the proposal reveals why, in the words of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, “it is a do or die” affair for this ruling group of Directors. By maintaining the status quo and buying up shares on the floor of the stock exchange, it is currently impossible for anyone with minority holding to gain majority shareholding, and neither is it possible through fair and equitable rights’ offers. Nevertheless, the proposed special/private placement makes it possible for “the ruling 4” Directors plus the “special interest” beneficiary of the special/private placement to achieve a super majority.
Putting this in clearer context, post the proposed private placement, the collective stake of the “ruling 4” Directors plus the special interest to whom the placement shares are issued will increase to 35.82% from 22.98%. Kindly note that the provisions of the special placement gives “the ruling 4” Directors the right to pick who these shares can be allotted to. They can even allot the said shares to themselves or any one of them in the absence of any sensible checks and balances.
In truth, if the intention of the “ruling 4” Directors is to increase their interest or influence in the company, I have no fundamental objection to this goal. After all, we believe that the interest of shareholders is best served when management is significantly invested in the subject company. But the offer should nevertheless be appropriately priced. If I were to negotiate on behalf of fellow shareholders, I would place a price tag of N4 per share as I initially stated in this article and every kobo of that valuation can be justified. However, do not take my valuation as it is, let’s look to the market for the appropriate valuation of the company’s shares. The special placement is priced at N2.50 while the market price is currently N3.34 as at 27/06/18, representing a discount of 33.59%. This is clearly unusual and indicative of management’s destruction of other shareholders’ value and is designed to grant inordinate gain to an unidentified “special interest”. The question is: who will these shares be allotted to?
As an investor and specifically a shareholder of this company, VFD Group will like to participate in this offer. In fact, we will like to take up the entire offer. Why is such a compelling offer restricted to the exclusion of other shareholders who are willing and able to participate? How do you offer a significant stake of a company via a special/private placement priced at a significant discount to market?
My basic understanding of special/private placement posits the following considerations:
- That the public company cannot raise capital via rights offer.
- That the public company cannot raise capital via a public offer.
- That the company is not doing well and as such, investors are reluctant to be exposed to such company and therefore placing the company under immense capitalisation pressure.
- That the company is subject to all three above considerations and it is in dire need of funds.
If any of the above stated is the situation with NEM Insurance Plc, then the offer as proposed will be in the best interest of the company and shareholders alike. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Shareholders are willing to participate in a public or rights offer because the company is doing very well. As mentioned earlier, the Management of the company have done remarkably well based on the operations of the company and this is indicative in the current market price, profitability and industry ranking of the company. The company is also not cash-strapped; in fact, the Board proposed and obtained approval for the payment of 10k/share dividend at the purported AGM and has consistently paid dividend in the prior years. It is also not under pressure by regulators to recapitalise, as it is one of the few insurance companies that has maintained a clean bill of health. By the way, to date, no one has explained to shareholders what the funds to be raised will be utilised for.
So, what is the justification for the proposed special/private placement? What are the proceeds of the proposed offer for? If we must raise funds, why not do it via rights issue or public offer? A private placement appropriates the value in the company for the benefit of a few and savvy shareholders will have none of this.
On a general note, I will like to address the role of institutions in the pursuance of best practices in corporate governance. Their roles are integral to its attainment or otherwise. I have reviewed the activities of our corporate regulators e.g. SEC, NSE, CAC, NAICOM and others and I am extremely confident in their capacity and moral commitment to upholding global best practice standards in governance in our market. They have demonstrated this time and time again and we have no doubt that it will sustain through the foreseeable future. It is important to ensure that this governance standards are not only upheld but are seen to be upheld by all relevant parties, including NEM Insurance Plc and all auxiliary and related parties or officers of the company, such as the directors and the company secretary, as well as the Company’s Registrar, APEL Capital & Trust Limited. These parties all owe a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders and are expected to always act in the best interests of the shareholders.
Before I conclude this piece, I will like to state a few things about VFD Group as a background to this matter, and with specific reference to our investment in NEM Insurance Plc.
- We are a Group of companies with interest/aspiration in all sectors of the financial services industry e.g. Asset Management, Bureau de Change, Banking, Microfinance, Insurance, International Remittance, Real Estate etc.
- Our operations are funded by our equity and debt investors as well as retained profit and we have been in existence for nine years. We currently have about 48 shareholders from all works of life, including leaders of public listed companies.
- We are not particularly interested in running these companies or retaining Board positions, but we are firmly interested in the proper governance of our investee companies, a strong trend of profitability and consistent payment of dividend. Once that is in place, we are delighted to support management of these companies.
- We also stand against interference with the operations of the company because we do not consider ourselves experts in our investee companies’ area of business. We believe once our set objectives are in place, we have no business interfering in their business operation.
- This article is not written with malice and as much as possible, I have ensured that it is not personal but focused purely on the facts at hand. I also owe a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders and it behoves me to speak on their behalf and protect their interest. I also think it is in the interest of the Nigerian investing public to speak out and advocate better corporate governance. Our economy will be better off by this and similar efforts.
- We think that our interests are aligned with those of NEM Insurance Plc and that there is absolutely no need for protective schemes with the negative implication on the company.
In conclusion, I call on the Board and Management of NEM Insurance Plc to set aside the purported 48th AGM of the Company and the resolutions passed thereat. This should not be done with the mind-set of a victor or vanquished but should be done in the interest of all shareholders, majority or minority alike. I am certain that if we do the right thing by the company, all shareholders will be better for it in the long run instead of a slow and deliberate process of destruction of value that is inevitable, if we continue down this path. In the meantime, VFD Group will take all necessary lawful steps to protect its investments in NEM while supporting the company to continue its growth trajectory.
Business
MREIF is Better: FirstBank’s Mortgage Loan Is the Game-Changer for Home Ownership in Nigeria
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.
Business
Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty
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]
Business
WFA APPOINTS GLOBAL BRAND EXECUTIVES TO EXPANDED LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE
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.
-
news4 months agoWHO REALLY OWNS MONIEPOINT? The $290 Million Deal That Sold Nigeria’s Top Fintech to Foreign Interests
-
celebrity radar - gossips3 months agoDr. Chris Okafor Returns with Power and Fire of the Spirit -Mounts Grace Nation Altar with Fresh Anointing and Restoration Grace on February 1, 2026
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoEnd of an Era: Nigeria Mourns Evangelist Dr. Uma Ukpai, 80
-
celebrity radar - gossips4 months agoProphet Kingsley Aitafo Releases 2026 Prophecy: ‘Nigeria Will Rise, but the World Must Prepare for Turbulence’


You must be logged in to post a comment Login
You must log in to post a comment.