Opinion
Opinion: 2019 Election Petitions: The Judiciary Can Help Sanitize Nigerian Electoral System
- /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Federal-High-Court-Lagos_large.jpg&description=Opinion: 2019 Election Petitions: The Judiciary Can Help Sanitize Nigerian Electoral System', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Federal-High-Court-Lagos_large.jpg&description=Opinion: 2019 Election Petitions: The Judiciary Can Help Sanitize Nigerian Electoral System', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
By Raymond Nkannebe; Esq.
With the limitation period for the presentation of petitions flowing from the just concluded Presidential and National Assembly elections having closed a fortnight ago, and those of gubernatorial and Houses of Assembly elections closing on the 1st of April, 2019 save for states and local constituencies where supplementary elections were held on the 23rd of March, 2019, it is safe to conclude that the politicians have had their day under the proverbial sun, and have now passed the ball into the court of the judiciary who must now get to work in the next one year at least to determine the catalogue of petitions that have proceeded from the womb of the 2019 elections which in many ways brought to full glare and national embarrassment, the weakness of our electoral process. So bad was it, that some segment of the civil society posit that it is arguably the worst election to have been conducted in Nigeria since the dawn of uninterrupted democracy in 1999.
Contrary to the situation in 2015, the victory of president Muhammadu Buhari is today a subject of litigation. Whereas former president Goodluck Jonathan made the now famous phone call to his opponent candidate Muhammadu Buhari when it became crystal clear that he was on the wrong side of the ballot, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar rightly or wrongly depending on the individual’s political bias, has decided to challenge the re-election of Muhammadu Buhari in court.
In a 147-page petition filed on his behalf by a battery of very senior and distinguished members of the bar, Atiku and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), are asking that the result of the election as announced by the electoral umpire, INEC be nullified, and their candidate returned. According to them from what one gathers from the well laid out petition, on a proper computation of results from the polling units, it was the PDP and their candidate Atiku Abubakar, and not Muhammadu Buhari who won the election. They have made a heavy weather of having evidences which support this proposition particularly the smart card reader data from all the polling units across the country transmitted to INEC’s back-end server during the course of the polls.
Beyond Atiku’s petition, a staggering 736 petitions challenging one election or the other, have been received by the election petition tribunals inaugurated by the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Muhammad, two weeks before the conduct of the election. This number understandably could increase as the final collation of results by INEC in Rivers state last week, has seen some candidates and their political parties angling to challenge the return of incumbent Governor Nyesom Wike.
The climate of rigging and manipulation of election results in Nigeria added to the undue militarization of the electoral process by the incumbents who are often in control of the security apparatus often necessitates the challenge of elections by Petitioners on a number of grounds that have been laid down by the electoral law namely, that the person whose election is being challenged was not qualified to contest the election ab initio; or that the winner of the election did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Others are that the questioned election is invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act; or that the Petitioner was validly nominated but was unlawfully excluded from contesting in the election by the electoral umpire. See section 138(1) )(a-d) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
It is however not in the fleshing out of the grounds of the petition and the particulars in support of same that the Petitioners often run into a problem but in the leading of evidence to establish to the required degree of proof, the often serious allegations contained in most petitions such that could eventuate into a return of the petitioner by the tribunal as was recently seen in the Osun state election petition tribunal which nullified the victory of incumbent governor Gboyega Oyetola in favour of Senator Ademola Adeleke. This writer however understands that decision is a subject of appeal at the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja.
A holistic appraisal of the election petitions that have made their way to our courts and/or election tribunals as far back as the cases of Omoboriowo v Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; Obih v Mbakwe (1984) LPELR-2712 (SC); Nwobodo v Onoh (1984) 1 SC 1; Buhari v INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (pt. 1120); Ojukwu v Obasanjo (2006) (EPR) 242 to name a few, will readily reveal the near impossibility of upturning an election through the courts. A petitioner almost always finds himself contending with a large body of case law and statutory provisions that literally excuses and/or explains away the electoral infractions complained of in his petition. Save for a handful of cases where a petitioner was returned through the tribunals, thousands of petitions go to court at every election cycle without any success. Perhaps the circumstances of the 2007 general election puts the difficulties faced by a petitioner in proper context. Despite the winner of that very controversial election acknowledging that the process which brought him to power was fraught with widespread irregularities and gross manipulation of the electoral process, it is ironical to say the least, that the challenge of that election at the presidential election tribunal by then General Muhammadu Buhari came to nought. Such is the lot of the Petitioner.
The sad consequence(s) of this is that it has helped to fester the culture of rigging across board. The Nigerian politician having understood how difficult it is to upturn an election through the courts, has devised even more brazen and disingenuous means of rigging him or herself into power and thereafter, dare their opponent to go to court to challenge the victory. Anyone who has had the privilege of studying the electoral forms from our shambolic elections will readily come to terms with the fact that elections in Nigeria are basically a riggers affair. It is the candidate who is able to out-rig the other through any means whatsoever that is often declared the winner thus making a mockery of our democracy.
In a bold attempt however to improve the sanctity and integrity of our electoral process and to the credit of former chairman of the electoral commission Alhaji Attahiru Jega, the smart card reader was introduced in the 2015 general election to checkmate the recurrent problem of multiple accreditation of voters against the spirit of the voters register. The genus of the smart card reader machine was to ensure that only bio-metrically accredited voters could cast valid ballots at the polling booths. It was thought that it would solve the recurrent problem of multiple thumbprinting by unscrupulous elements who lend themselves to politicians who prostitute the electoral process.
But the legality of the smart card reader as an instrument for the conduct of elections was to evolve into a serious constitutional debate on the back of the petitions that made it to the election tribunals following that round of elections. In the case of Nyesom v Peterside (2014) 5 NWLR (pt. 1430) 377 a full-bench of the apex Court despite acknowledging the motive behind the introduction and use of the card reader machine in an election, which needless to say was to bolster the democratic norm of “one man one vote”, went ahead to strike it down for having derived its efficacy from the INEC guidelines which obviously was in conflict with section 49(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) which nominates the voters register as the instrument of accreditation of voters and proof of over-voting by a person challenging an election.
In answering the question whether failure to use card reader for accreditation of voters can invalidate an election, the apex Court Per. AKA’AHS held instructively as follows, “the introduction of the card reader is certainly a welcome development in the electoral process. Although it is meant to improve on the integrity of those accredited to vote so as to check the incidence of rigging, it is yet to be made part of the Electoral Act. Section 138(2) envisages a situation where the Electoral Commission issues instruction or guidelines which are not carried out. The failure of the card reader machine, or failure to use it for the accreditation of voters cannot invalidate an election. The section provides as follows: “138(2) an act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election”.
With the above sentiments of the apex Court, many of the petitioners who went to court in the last cycle of election hoping to make a case out of the non-use of the smart card readers in the accreditation of voters at the polling units found themselves on the wrong side of the law, and severally paid with a dismissal of their petitions. Unfortunately, none of the petitioners drew the attention of the apex Court to the amendment of section 49 (2) of the Electoral Act which was signed into law by former president Goodluck Jonathan on the 20th of March, 2015, just 8 days before the holding of the general election. On their part too, the judex did not take judicial notice of this amendment to the principal Act which legitimized the use of the smart card reader for voter accreditation; the very basis upon which the Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the INEC on April 11, 2015.
Having said that, the 2019 elections and the petitions trailing it, provides another window of judicial activism for the judiciary which has the potency of revolutionizing our electoral process and by extension, our nascent democracy. With the countrywide criticisms that have greeted the conduct of the just concluded general elections ranging from selective use of the smart card reader machines in some places and the outright thumbprinting of ballot papers in the quarters of party chieftains and what not, in a barefaced prostitution of our electoral process, suffice it to say that the ball is effectively in the Court of the judiciary to rise up to the occasion in ensuring that not a single illegal vote counts in the return of a candidate.
A simple way to do this, is to ensure the fulsome recognition of the data from the smart card reader machines and using same as a benchmark for reconciling the total votes cast in a polling unit so as to check against over-voting which was perpetrated by politicians with reckless abandon in the just concluded 2019 elections. In places where the smart card reader machines malfunctioned and thus were not used, the tribunals must ensure that the procedure enumerated by the electoral umpire on how voters in such polling units should cast their votes, was applied to the latter. Anything otherwise, must of necessity lead to the cancellation of the results from such unit as consecrated by the relevant provision of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), and the Guidelines of the electoral commission 2019. Thankfully, the apex Court in the Nyesom v Peterside case (supra) acknowledges that the innovation of the smart card reader machines was well intentioned in that, it was calculated to improve the integrity of our elections. The petitions that are now lying before the several election petition tribunals across the country, provides an opportunity for the judex to uphold the smart card reader machine and lend it the much needed judicial imprimatur which counted against its usage in the last cycle of elections, irrespective of the consequences for the individual poll where it is applied.
At a time when it has been shown that the executive and the legislature are enmeshed in a dark conspiracy to the detriment of our democracy, such as was seen in the circumstances under which assent to the Electoral Act Amendment Bill (2018) was refused by president Muhammadu Buhari, the judiciary can step in, in its hallowed capacity as the avowed defender of any democracy to sanitize our electoral system. This is what Nigerians who are increasingly losing confidence in our electoral process earnestly asks of the judiciary.
Raymond Nkannebe; a legal practitioner writes from Lagos.
By Tolulope A. Adegoke
Freedom is humanity’s greatest triumph. But every liberation comes with a hidden bill, and true leadership is defined by how we choose to pay it.
INTRODUCTION: THE UNSEEN PRICE OF OUR GREATEST VICTORY
Freedom is the anthem of our age. From the ballot box to the boardroom to the bedroom, we celebrate the expansion of choice and autonomy. We march for it, vote for it, and sacrifice for it. We have enshrined it in constitutions, encoded it in market regulations, and elevated it as the ultimate human aspiration. Yet, as we applaud each new victory of liberation, we have failed to open the liberty ledger—the silent accounting of what we owe in return. There is a debt we pay, not in currency, but in psychological exhaustion, corporate integrity, and national cohesion. And that debt is now coming due with alarming urgency.
This is not a call to abandon freedom. It is a call to mature beyond the adolescent fantasy that liberation is a one-time event. The truth, as history and contemporary experience demonstrate, is far more sobering. Freedom is not a finish line; it is a perpetual negotiation. Every act of emancipation—whether a nation throwing off colonial rule, a corporation breaking free from regulatory oversight, or an individual shedding the constraints of tradition—sets in motion a cascade of hidden liabilities. These liabilities, if left unacknowledged, metastasize into crises that undermine the very freedom they were meant to secure. True leadership, therefore, must be redefined. It is not measured by the freedom we acquire, but by the weight we bear to preserve it for those who follow.
PART I: THE PARADOX OF PERSONAL FREEDOM – LIBERATION WITHOUT ANCHORS
For the individual, never have we possessed more freedom. We can choose our careers, our relationships, our spiritual paths, and our identities with a latitude that would have been unimaginable to previous generations. Digital platforms connect us to global communities, and economic mobility offers opportunities once reserved for the privileged few. Yet, the data tells a profoundly unsettling story. The World Health Organization reports a 25% surge in anxiety and depressive disorders over the past decade, with young adults bearing the heaviest burden. Suicide rates have climbed in nearly every region of the developed world.
What is driving this contradiction? The answer lies in the erosion of external scaffolding. For millennia, human beings derived their sense of stability, identity, and purpose from traditional structures: family, faith, community, and inherited social roles. These structures provided pre-packaged life scripts. They answered fundamental questions—”Who am I?” “What is my purpose?” “Where do I belong?”—without requiring each individual to reinvent the wheel from scratch.
Liberation dismantled these scripts. In doing so, it granted unprecedented autonomy, but it also transferred the entire burden of existential meaning-making onto the individual. This is what existential philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Viktor Frankl called the “burden of choice.” When we are free to become anything, we are also forced to become something—and that act of creation is terrifying.
The result is decision fatigue, chronic anxiety, and a gnawing sense of inadequacy. Social media amplifies this crisis by presenting a relentless parade of curated perfection, encouraging perpetual comparison and self-doubt. Ironically, freedom from prejudice and tradition has birthed new forms of self-imposed tyranny: the pressure to be perfectly curated, professionally agile, and perpetually happy. We have produced a generation that is free from external chains but enslaved to internal dissonance. This is the hidden cost of personal liberation—and it is a crisis that demands a leadership response.
True leadership in the personal sphere begins with the recognition that autonomy without emotional intelligence is a ship without a rudder. We must institutionalize emotional literacy, teach decision-theory in schools, and destigmatize therapy as a routine practice of self-maintenance. We must also revive what sociologists call “third spaces”—public libraries, community gardens, intergenerational mentorship hubs, and cultural centers—that offer belonging without coercion. These spaces serve as psychological moorings, anchoring us against the storm of radical autonomy. Mental health first aid must become as routine as physical health screenings. This is not a soft indulgence; it is a strategic investment in human capital and social stability.
PART II: THE CORPORATE LEDGER – WHEN MARKET FREEDOM BECOMES MARKET LICENSE
For corporations, freedom has historically been synonymous with market liberalization, deregulation, and shareholder primacy. The victory of corporate liberation—from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 to the global proliferation of private equity—has catalyzed extraordinary innovation. We have witnessed technological revolutions, global supply chains, and wealth creation on an unprecedented scale. Yet, the hidden cost manifests as strategic myopia and systemic ethical erosion.
When oversight is removed, corporate entities frequently conflate freedom with license. The results are not abstract theoretical concerns; they are catastrophic realities. Consider the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, which was not merely an engineering failure but a failure of leadership culture—a culture that prioritized speed and cost-cutting over safety and environmental stewardship. Consider the gig-economy revolution, which has created remarkable flexibility but also a precarious underclass of workers without benefits, job security, or collective bargaining power. Consider the 2008 subprime crisis, which was not a natural disaster but a direct consequence of financial deregulation and the reckless pursuit of short-term profits.
Beyond these operational failures lies a deeper, more insidious cost: reputational fragility. A corporation freed from government anchors must now answer to a hyper-critical public, volatile social media campaigns, and activist shareholders—all within a relentless 24-hour news cycle. The very freedom to pivot strategies, downsize workforces, or relocate headquarters has cultivated a transactional culture devoid of loyalty. Short-term quarterly earnings systematically undermine long-term sustainable value. Leadership has become synonymous with quarterly performance, and stewardship has been replaced by speculative arbitrage.
The Edelman Trust Barometer consistently confirms this crisis. Over 60% of global citizens now distrust business leaders, viewing corporate freedom not as a gift but as a euphemism for unbridled greed. This erosion of trust is not a public relations problem; it is a leadership pathology. When trust collapses, everything collapses: employee engagement, consumer loyalty, investor confidence, and regulatory goodwill. The freedom to operate, it turns out, is contingent upon the social license to operate.
True leadership in the corporate sphere requires a fundamental shift from shareholder primacy to stakeholder stewardship. Corporations must legally restructure their charters to include explicit fiduciary duties not only to shareholders, but also to employees, communities, and the biosphere. This is not philanthropy; it is risk management. Companies that embed Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics into executive compensation structures reduce long-term volatility and enhance brand resilience.
Furthermore, every major strategic decision—mergers, downsizing, new market expansions—must undergo a mandatory “hidden cost impact assessment” that quantifies psychological, social, and ecological externalities. This converts abstract moral costs into concrete, mitigable financial line items. Finally, corporations must co-create governance councils with civil society representatives and local government entities. By treating operational freedom as a perishable privilege that must be continuously earned, corporate leaders can transform hidden costs into competitive advantages, securing premium talent, investor confidence, and long-term market stability. This is the new fiduciary duty of modern leadership.
PART III: THE GEOPOLITICAL LEDGER – SOVEREIGNTY AS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
For sovereign states, the ultimate victory is complete sovereignty—the freedom to chart foreign policy, manage national resources, and enforce legal frameworks without external interference. The dissolution of empires, the collapse of communist blocs, and the democratization of authoritarian regimes represent some of the most profound achievements of modern history. Yet, this victory incurs a crushing hidden cost: the absolute and unilateral responsibility for national security, economic stability, and social cohesion.
Historical evidence is instructive and sobering. Post-colonial transitions across Africa and Asia frequently produced not prosperity but civil war, ethnic conflict, and economic disintegration. Post-communist transformations in Eastern Europe witnessed the dissolution of social safety nets, the rise of oligarchic capitalism, and a generation of disillusionment. Even mature democracies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have experienced the “weight of victory” in the form of polarized legislatures, deteriorating public infrastructure, and fiscal insolvency. When a nation is liberated from imperial or authoritarian control, it inherits a broken bureaucracy, a fragmented civil society, and a hollowed industrial base. The liberation may be political, but the reconstruction is existential.
The most profound cost is the maintenance of legitimacy. Unlike dictatorial regimes that rule by coercion, free nations must govern through consent—a process that is inherently messy, resource-intensive, and slow. Electoral processes, judicial appeals, public consultations, and independent media consume enormous fiscal and emotional capital. Furthermore, the freedom to select alliances, trade partners, and defense strategies creates perpetual geopolitical anxiety. The nation that was once a pawn is now a player—yet every strategic move carries the risk of diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, or military confrontation.
The ultimate tragedy is the dissolution of collective purpose. Freedom from a common enemy often fractures national unity. The United States, following the Cold War, experienced a crisis of national purpose that persists to this day. The Soviet Union’s dissolution left many post-Soviet republics in economic chaos and identity vacuums. The Arab Spring, which was celebrated globally as a democratic awakening, descended into devastating civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Freedom, without a unifying narrative, becomes a centrifugal force that tears nations apart. Leadership, in this context, must provide not only liberty but meaning.
True leadership in the national sphere requires strategic statecraft and adaptive governance. Nations must institutionalize four interconnected pillars. First, constitutional resilience mechanisms: constitutions should incorporate “circuit breakers” for political polarization—including mandatory national dialogues, citizen assemblies, and independent fiscal councils—that intervene during periods of acute crisis. Second, national unity covenants: rather than relying on external threats for consolidation, nations must forge cross-partisan “prosperity pacts” centered on measurable, bipartisan objectives such as energy independence, universal digital access, and healthcare equity. Third, regional integration with safeguards: the singular burden of sovereignty can be shared through supranational frameworks like the European Union, ASEAN, or the African Union, but integration must be predicated upon subsidiarity—ensuring that local identities and national legislative autonomy are preserved. Fourth, national resilience funds: every liberated nation should establish a sovereign wealth fund that sequesters a fixed percentage of resource revenues specifically for systemic shocks—pandemics, climate catastrophes, cyber-attacks, and demographic collapse. These pillars transform the weight of sovereignty from a crushing burden into a sustainable framework for enduring prosperity.
PART IV: ONE LEDGER, THREE COLUMNS – THE INTERCONNECTED CRISIS
It is critical to recognize that the hidden costs for peoples, corporates, and nations are not discrete or isolated. They are dynamically interlocking. When a corporation exploits its market freedom to maximize quarterly profits, it destabilizes national labor markets, exacerbates income inequality, and intensifies individual psychological distress. When a nation asserts its sovereignty through aggressive foreign policies, it disrupts global supply chains, destabilizes corporate logistics, and propagates civilian anxiety. Conversely, when an individual exercises freedom irresponsibly—through excessive consumption or financial imprudence—it fuels corporate extraction and depletes national fiscal reserves.
This systemic entanglement means that fragmented, sector-specific solutions are inherently insufficient. A holistic resolution requires a tripartite compact—a legally and ethically binding agreement among the state, the market, and the citizenry. This compact must enshrine the foundational principle that freedom is a form of stewardship, not a conditional entitlement. Leadership, at every level, must recognize that liberty is a trust—a trust that requires careful management, transparent accounting, and unwavering commitment to the common good.
PART V: THE LIBERTY LOAD INDEX – A GLOBAL MEASURE FOR LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY
Imagine a global benchmark—a Liberty Load Index—that assesses how well a nation or corporation balances freedom with resilience. This index would measure three critical variables: psychological burden (mental health prevalence, suicide rates, and life satisfaction scores); corporate accountability (ESG compliance, ethical breach records, and workforce satisfaction); and national stability (fiscal health, political polarization, and infrastructure quality).
Nations and corporations that achieve a healthy “sweet spot”—where freedom is responsibly balanced with resilience—would receive preferential access to international development financing, improved sovereign credit ratings, and expedited trade agreements. Conversely, entities exhibiting “freedom fatigue”—high liberty indices but low resilience scores—would be mandated to participate in internationally supported stewardship reconstruction programs. This is not socialism; it is prudent global risk management. It is also the hallmark of mature leadership on the world stage.
CONCLUSION: THE VICTORY OF MATURITY
The hidden cost of freedom is, at its core, the price of collective maturity. Children demand liberty without understanding its consequences; adults accept it as a package deal with obligations. For centuries, humanity has fought to liberate itself from external tyrants, monopolies, and empires. Yet, the next frontier of struggle is not against external oppressors. It is against the internal atrophy, fragmentation, and fatigue that inevitably follow liberation.
By objectively recognizing, quantitatively measuring, and systematically addressing the psychological, strategic, and geopolitical weights that accompany victory, global leaders can transform these hidden costs from silent ravagers into visible architects of sustainable progress. The solution is not to abandon freedom—such a regression would be existential folly. The solution is to carry the weight with dignity and institutional intelligence, to construct systemic support structures that distribute the burden equitably, and to instill in every citizen, executive, and statesman a profound truth: that true leadership is not merely the right to choose—it is the wisdom to choose well, with foresight, responsibility, and collective solidarity.
In doing so, humanity converts a hidden cost into a hidden strength. We transform a heavy burden into a proud badge of enduring stewardship. And we ensure that the victory of delivering freedom to peoples, corporates, and nations is not a fleeting historical euphoria, but a permanent, prosperous, and peaceful inheritance for all generations yet to come.
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, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com
By Henry Ukazu
Dear Destiny Friends,
To be successful, everyone needs to be effective and efficient in all they do. Success does not come from nicety, speech articulation or fine diction, spotless dressing, connections, good proposal or even from having a good product. Though all these factors might play a role, a business man must not only be efficient in their business, they must also be effective.
These words, effective and efficient no doubt, are so closely related, however there’s a thin line of difference between the two. If you stay with me for awhile, you’ll understand.
One might be wondering what the difference between being effective and being efficient is. According to Dr. Yomi Garnett, a prolific and exceptional ghost writer, efficiency is the ability to do something well without wasting energy or effort, whilst to be effective is simply to do something well. Let’s talk a minute to explain how this works. One can be efficient and not effective, and one can be effective and not efficient. But a truly great mind is both effective and efficient. When one is efficient, it means that he can do the work within the shortest possible time. This may be because he has done it over and over again, and have mastered its nitty-gritty.
There’s a saying, if someone can’t explain something to a six-year-old child, that person doesn’t understand the subject very well. I agree with this saying because when someone understands something, he/she won’t go through stress explaining it, and will spend minimum time doing it. Whilst for someone who is effective, he knows the issue or has a subject matter expert on the business very well. He can literally do it when he wakes up from sleep without rehearsing. So, in summary, an effective person saves time, while an efficient person explains better.
As progressive beings, we must be proactive with not only our life, but also our business, career, and whatever we find our hand worthy of doing. By doing so, people will appreciate us and support us. In business, one of the best forms of advertising is referral. When one’s work is exceptionally good, he doesn’t need too much advertising; his work will speak for itself. For instance, anyone who may have used the product might say ‘I have used this product or service, and I can guarantee its effectiveness’. Another person might say ‘the staff are very efficient, professional, and great at customer service’.
All these are great reviews. Trust me, one doesn’t need too many reviews to believe in the authenticity of what people are saying. They can sense a genuine review devoid of sentiments and vested interest. So, imagine a case where there’s no review, one might have a challenge in believing the durability and effectiveness of the product/service.
As a business owner, one must be intentional with respect to how he treats his employers and customers. What most uninformed business owners don’t know is that when you take care of your staff, they will in turn take care of your business. When the staff are happy, they’ll treat the customers well, and when the customers are happy, they’ll in turn tell the world. Do you see how effectiveness and efficiency work in a company?
In a similar way, if one is consistent in publishing articles every week like I do, opportunities are bound to arise soon when there’s alignment. As a business owner, I can authoritatively tell you being good at what you say you do is a currency. Nobody likes shady or dirty work. I can also tell you people are ready to pay for premium services provided you can deliver.
Let me share a personal experience with you; two months ago, I visited my home country – Nigeria, for a business opportunity. During my meeting with some established institutions, I had to submit proposals to them. But because I wasn’t proficient in writing proposals, I had to hire a consultant to do the job for me. Not only did I hire a consultant, I also flew him for business meetings because I trusted his judgment, and guess work, it paid off.
Imagine, if I had to do it myself, I doubt if the work would have been given the kind of positive attention it attracted. Why am I sharing this information? When one is good at what they do, it won’t take long for them to be seen when the right opportunity comes.
Being efficient and effective does not only apply to our professional lives, it’s also applicable in our personal lives. In the world we currently live in, things are governed by perception. When people see how effective and efficient you are, they will be inclined to associate with you, but when you appear like an unserious person, they will find it hard to recommend or refer you for business opportunities.
So, today, take stock and ask yourself if are you an effective and efficient person; if your company is effective and efficient. If your answer is no; ask yourself what you can do to make you and your company effective. The answer will set you on the right path to success.
Henry Ukazu writes from New York. He works with the New York City Department of Correction as the Legal Coordinator. He’s the founder of Gloemi. He’s a Transformative Human Capacity and Mindset coach. He is also a public speaker, youth advocate, creative writer and author of Design Your Destiny Design and Unleash Your Destiny . He can be reached via info@gloemi.com
