The appointments bring in Sadiq Mohammed as an Independent Non-Executive Director, alongside Tunde Mabawonku and Rolake Akinkugbe-Filani as Non-Executive Directors. 

The changes take effect immediately and is part of its board-level governance structure.

Mohammed arrives with more than three decades of experience across financial markets, pensions, infrastructure, real estate and alternative investments. He founded Hexium Investments, an advisory and investment firm focused on financial services and real estate.

He also spent 28 years at ARM Group, where he held senior roles including Deputy Group Chief Executive and Managing Director of ARM Pension Managers. His work covered large-scale projects such as the Lekki Concession Company, Fara Park Estate, Beechwood Estate and Lakowe Lakes Golf and Country Estate.

He previously served on several boards across financial services and infrastructure. These include FMDQ Clear Limited and FMDQ Group. He currently sits on the boards of Meta Digital Services Nigeria Limited and DCSL Corporate Services Limited. He is also part of the ARM-Harith Infrastructure Fund Investment Committee.

Mohammed studied at Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University and also completed an Executive MBA, attending leadership programmes at Harvard Business School. He holds the Financial Risk Manager certification.

Tunde Mabawonku joins the board as a Non-Executive Director while serving as Executive Director at Wema Bank Plc, where he oversees finance, retail and digital business.

He brings more than 25 years of experience in banking and financial services. His background covers strategy, financial control, risk management, digital transformation and cost management.

He started his career at Chartered Bank and later worked at Prudent Bank. At Prudent Bank, he led performance management and cost control functions. He also held senior roles at Skye Bank, now Polaris Bank, covering financial control, human capital management and advisory functions.

Mabawonku holds a Master’s degree in Finance from London Business School and a degree in Economics from the University of Ibadan. He is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria and a member of several professional bodies.

Rolake Akinkugbe-Filani joins the board with nearly twenty years of experience across banking, energy, capital markets, development finance and risk advisory.

She is the founder and chief executive officer of EnergyInc Advisors, a firm focused on infrastructure financing, capital mobilisation and strategic advisory services. Her previous roles include senior positions at Zenith Bank Plc, Ecobank Group, FBNQuest Merchant Bank, Mixta Africa, Eurasia Group and Control Risks Group.

She has worked across transactions and advisory engagements involving energy and infrastructure projects across multiple markets. Her experience also covers investment oversight, capital raising and risk governance.

Akinkugbe-Filani holds a Global Executive MBA under the TRIUM programme involving New York University Stern School of Business, London School of Economics and HEC Paris. She also studied International Relations and Government at the London School of Economics. She is an honorary member of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria.

The three new directors now join an expanded board structure at AIICO Insurance Plc. The board is chaired by Kundan Sainani, with Babatunde Fajemirokun serving as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.

The executive team also includes Adewale Kadri and Gbenga Ilori as Executive Directors. Other Non-Executive Directors include Ademola Adebise, Samaila Dalhat Zubairu, Folake Edun, Olalekan Akinyanmi and Raimund Snyders. Kemi Adewole serves as Independent Non-Executive Director.

The company noted that the board changes strengthen its governance framework and support long-term strategic direction.

In recent performance updates, AIICO Insurance has recorded year-to-date profits of over 21% on the Nigerian Exchange, with its share price at N4.60.

For the first quarter of 2026, the insurer posted a pre-tax profit of N5.8 billion. This compares with N5.1 billion in the same period last year.

Premium income rose to N55.4 billion from N46.9 billion. Claims also increased to N25.1 billion from N21.9 billion over the same period.

AIICO Insurance operates in a market affected by high premiums and higher claims costs, maintaining growth in earnings while expanding its governance structure through new board appointments.

In a regulatory filing released on April 7, MTN Group confirmed that several senior leaders received ordinary shares under its Performance Share Plan.

The awards were made on March 31, 2026 and come with conditions that tie them to future results.

The biggest allocation went to group chief executive Ralph Mupita, who received 207,633 shares valued at about $2.4 million. The shares will only vest after three years, provided performance targets are met.

Other senior executives also received large grants. Group finance chief Tsholofelo Molefe was awarded 111,931 shares, while Ebenezer Asante received 120,880 shares.

In Nigeria, Karl Toriola was allocated 28,704 shares, worth around $335,000 at the time of the award.

The shares were priced at $11.77 (R192.50) each. Like others in the scheme, they will only become accessible after a three-year period.

MTN said all the share awards were granted off-market and carry direct beneficial interest for the recipients. The vesting date has been set for December 2028.

The filing also shows that executives in key markets receive more than one layer of incentives. In addition to group-level shares, both Toriola and Modupe Kadri are entitled to long-term incentives linked to MTN Nigeria itself.

Across the group, directors and senior officers in South Africa and Ghana were also included in the latest round of awards. These include executives overseeing major subsidiaries and company secretaries, all under the same plan structure.

MTN’s share plan has been in place since 2010. It is designed to reward senior staff while keeping them focused on long-term performance.

The company requires recipients to meet set targets before the shares fully vest, and some may be forfeited if those targets are not achieved.

The appointment places Powell McCormick on Meta’s management team, with direct responsibility for helping drive strategy and execution at a time when the company is expanding its data centres, energy systems and connectivity projects across several regions. 

With this development, Meta is increasing its focus on capital, politics and scale as it pushes more into what it calls frontier AI and long-term computing bets.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and chief executive, described the decision regarding her financial and diplomatic reach. “Dina’s experience at the highest levels of global finance, combined with her deep relationships around the world, makes her uniquely suited to help Meta manage this next phase of growth as the company’s President and Vice Chairman,” he said.

Powell McCormick, not new to Meta, previously sat on the company’s board and was involved as it enhanced work on advanced AI systems. 

Her elevation comes as the cost and complexity of Meta’s vision peaks, with multi-billion-dollar investments now tied to physical assets and long-term financing rather than software alone.

Powell McCormick served as deputy national security adviser to President Donald Trump and earlier worked under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during George W. Bush’s administration. 

In the private sector, she spent 16 years at Goldman Sachs, where she was a partner, sat on the management committee and led global sovereign investment banking. 

During that period, she helped drive initiatives such as 10,000 Women, 10,000 Small Businesses and One Million Black Women, programmes aimed at long-term economic growth.

Trump publicly welcomed the appointment, posting on Truth Social: “Congratulations to DINA POWELL MCCORMICK, WHO HAS JUST BEEN NAMED THE NEW PRESIDENT OF META. A great choice by Mark Z!!! She is a fantastic, and very talented, person, who served the Trump Administration with strength and distinction.”

Inside Meta, Powell McCormick is expected to work with infrastructure and compute teams, overseeing how large investments are deployed and how they affect host communities. She will also be tasked with building new capital partnerships to support the company’s expanding financial needs.

Just last week, Meta hired Curtis Joseph Mahoney, a former Microsoft legal executive who also served as a deputy US trade representative during Trump’s first term. Taken together, the hires point to a strategy of bringing in leaders with experience in the regulatory environment and complex global financing.

Powell McCormick’s mix of government service and banking experience gives the company a steady hand as it moves further into capital-heavy territory.

The package, supported by over 75% of investors, is the largest corporate pay agreement in history.

The decision was announced at Tesla’s annual meeting in Austin, Texas, where Musk commended cheers and dancing robots. “What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” he told shareholders.

The package is tied to performance milestones rather than a fixed salary. It consists of 12 tranches linked to Tesla’s operational achievements and market valuation. 

To unlock the full payout, Tesla’s market capitalisation must grow from about $1.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion over the next decade. Each milestone gives Musk an additional 1% of Tesla’s stock, meaning he could still secure tens of billions even if he falls short of the final target.

The board presented the package as essential for retaining Elon Musk and ensuring long-term growth. “If completed, these tranches of awarded shares follow strong improvements in revenue growth for Tesla,” said Brian Mulberry, senior client portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management. 

“Will the growth offset these concerns of dilution, or, is this just giving Elon his wish of enough influence to shape the future of AI? That remains to be seen.”

Not all shareholders were convinced. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, along with proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, opposed the plan, calling it excessive. 

Still, supporters argued that Musk’s leadership and vision, ranging from self-driving cars to humanoid robots, remain central to Tesla’s future success.

Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm defended the decision, saying it reflected a turning point for the company. “Tesla is at an inflection point, I think I’ve said that 3,000 times over the last few weeks, and this last year has been a critical one in our history,” she said.

The new pay package replaces Elon Musk’s earlier $56 billion deal from 2018, which was struck down by a Delaware court earlier this year. Since then, Tesla has moved its incorporation to Texas and is appealing the ruling.

During the meeting, Musk outlined a series of upcoming projects, including the production of a steering-less “Cybercab” robotaxi, a new Roadster model, and plans for “a gigantic chip fab” that could involve a partnership with Intel.

He also insisted that the package is less about personal wealth and more about securing enough voting control to drive Tesla’s next phase of innovation.

Shareholders further approved the re-election of three board members, backed annual elections for all directors, and endorsed Tesla’s investment in Musk’s AI startup, xAI. Some abstained, signalling concerns about potential overlap between Musk’s ventures. 

“Many will be looking for the board to provide assurances and convictions that there are guardrails in place to be sure there’s not too much mixing of businesses,” said Jessica McDougall, partner at Longacre Square.

The decision, to be announced after the company’s annual general meeting in Austin, Texas, will boost Musk’s personal wealth to trillions of dollars and will also reveal how much trust investors have in his leadership and vision to transform Tesla from an electric vehicle maker into a company built around robotics and autonomous systems. 

A “yes” would reaffirm that faith and a “no” could unsettle markets.

The proposed package links Musk’s payout to several targets, which include Tesla delivering 20 million vehicles within a decade, putting one million robotaxis on the road, and raising its market capitalisation from around $1.5 trillion to as much as $8.5 trillion. 

Supporters call these goals huge but achievable under Musk’s leadership. On the other hand, some see them as an excessive risk that gives too much power to one man.

Among the most vocal opponents are Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and leading proxy advisory firms, who argue the package is “excessive” and “unwarranted.” Still, Elon Musk holds about 15% of Tesla’s shares and is allowed to vote them this time, making the pay package approval highly likely.

The vote also follows a case in Delaware, where Musk’s previous $50 billion package was voided earlier this year. Tesla’s relocation to Texas now allows shareholders to revisit that compensation under different corporate laws.

Tesla’s Chair, Robyn Denholm, in a letter to shareholders, urged support for the plan: “The fundamental question for shareholders at this year’s Annual Meeting is simple: Do you want to retain Elon as Tesla’s CEO and motivate him to drive Tesla to become the leading provider of autonomous solutions and the most valuable company in the world?”

Investors will also vote on whether Tesla should invest in xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company. He has previously said Tesla “should back the company,” but the board has not endorsed the move. Some see it as a way to speed up Tesla’s AI vision; others fear conflicts of interest, given Musk’s multiple ventures.

Another proposal seeks to abolish Tesla’s supermajority voting requirement, which currently demands a two-thirds majority to make key changes. Previous attempts to scrap it failed in 2019, 2021, and 2022. If passed, it would lower the threshold to a simple majority, and some investors believe it could consolidate Musk’s influence further.

A separate proposal calls for Tesla to adopt a political neutrality policy, prohibiting partisan activity by executives and assigning oversight to a board committee. Tesla’s board opposes the measure, saying its current governance already ensures transparency and accountability.

This measure indirectly tests investor mindset toward Musk’s outspoken political behaviour, including his public support for former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Despite the near certainty of passage, the vote has divided institutional investors. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, several U.S. pension funds, and major proxy advisers such as ISS and Glass Lewis have all declared opposition. 

Musk’s base of retail shareholders, however, remains fiercely loyal and could provide the margin of victory, as they did in last year’s shareholder vote.

Musk’s personal ventures, public remarks, and unpredictable management style have repeatedly influenced Tesla’s stock and reputation. 

It’s been argued that Tesla’s board has become too aligned with him. Stephen Diamond, a corporate governance expert at Santa Clara University, observed: “There’s very little evidence of any dissent or daylight between the board and Musk on any issue. You just have to wonder whether that’s really a rational way to run the company.”

If the new pay package passes by a wide margin, it would strengthen Musk’s grip on Tesla and symbolically counter the Delaware court’s earlier ruling. But a narrow approval could lead to investor unease over Musk’s position and Tesla’s future governance.

Musk himself has tied his continued leadership to shareholder approval. Tesla’s board previously revealed that he might walk away if denied the package. 

DAOs are not just a fleeting trend; they represent a radical rethinking of how companies can be organized and managed, challenging traditional hierarchies and centralized decision-making processes.

Understanding DAOs: A New Model for Corporate Governance

At its core, a DAO is an organization represented by rules encoded as a computer program that is transparent, controlled by organization members, and not influenced by a central government.

DAOs are internet-native businesses collectively owned and managed by their members.

They have built-in treasuries that no one has the authority to access without the group’s approval. Decisions are made via proposals and voting to ensure everyone in the organization has a voice.

The need for change is what is driving this shift as blockchain ecosystem participants wish to not only use non-custodial platforms that enable peer-to-peer exchanges such as ChangeNow, but also establish new types of governance systems that are community-centric within digital asset capital markets.

The Impact of DAOs on Traditional Corporate Governance

• Decentralization of Power: Unlike traditional companies where decisions are top-down, DAOs operate on a flat structure. Power is distributed among all members, leading to a more democratic decision-making process.
• Transparency and Trust: All transactions and voting are recorded on the blockchain, ensuring transparency and accountability. This fosters a higher level of trust among stakeholders than in traditional corporate setups where decisions often happen behind closed doors.
• Global Participation and Diversity: DAOs are not limited by geography. They allow for global participation, which brings diverse perspectives and democratizes opportunity beyond the confines of physical borders or conventional corporate structures.
• Efficiency and Agility: DAOs can operate and adapt faster than traditional organizations because they are not bogged down by bureaucracy. Smart contracts automate many administrative tasks, allowing members to focus on strategic decisions and innovation.
• Investor Relations and Tokenomics: In DAOs, investors are often also participants, directly involved in governance through token ownership. This alignment of interests between investors and operators can potentially lead to more sustainable and long-term value creation.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite their potential, DAOs face significant challenges. Regulatory uncertainty, scalability issues, and the complexity of ensuring fair governance models are just some of the hurdles.

Additionally, the reliance on technology raises concerns around security and the potential for systemic failures.

The Future: DAOs in the Business Ecosystem

The rise of DAOs signals a shift towards a more inclusive and democratic form of business management. While they may not replace traditional corporations overnight, they offer a compelling alternative for new ventures, especially in the digital and creative economies.

Forward-thinking companies are already exploring how DAO structures can be integrated into their governance models, potentially leading to hybrid forms that blend the best of both worlds.

DAOs are more than just a blockchain-based curiosity; they are a testament to the evolving nature of work, collaboration, and corporate governance in the digital age.

By bringing transparency, inclusivity, and efficiency to the table, they challenge the status quo, offering a glimpse into a future where business is more democratic and decentralized.

As we navigate this transition, the interplay between traditional corporate structures and DAOs will undoubtedly be an area ripe with innovation, experimentation, and significant learning opportunities for leaders across industries.

Heath Muchena is the Founder of Proudly Associated and Author of Tokenized Trillions, Blockchain Applied, DeFi Millionaire, Tech in Africa and others.

Corporate governance exists regardless of whether an organisation pays attention to it or not. The key difference is that fintech companies with a good governance structure will be more sustainable in the long run, while customers and regulators will see right through the cracks of a fintech with poor corporate governance.

For better understanding of the concept, corporate governance can be defined as the set of rules, practices and guidelines with which an organisation uses to operate, control and manage its business.

The key principles of corporate governance are accountability, transparency, fairness, responsibility and last but not the least, risk management.

While adherence to corporate governance is a business-as-usual activity to banks who are often tightly regulated both locally and globally, fintechs have typically more latitude, especially when they are starting up.

Fintech companies are typically in the news for ground-breaking achievements such as investor funding, annual profits, rise in valuation or cross-border expansion.

Entrepreneurial and innovation biases, often predominant in founders, is often not backed up with same level of enthusiasm for governance.

Globally, some of the largest fintech companies have been called out recently for all the wrong reasons – ranging from financial misconduct to insider trading, to name just a few.

Given the exponential growth and investments into the fintech industry, investors, regulators and indeed customers are demanding governance practices and corporate governance in fintech has now become a critical success factor, beyond building a marketable product that scales to the unicorn status.

The most recent Africa Tech Venture Capital (VC) report released by Partech Africa revealed that in 2022, the African tech ecosystem raised US$ 6.5 billion in funding, representing a growth of 8% from the previous year.

The growing interest in the sector, and recent global crisis involving operators such as FTX has raised stakeholder interest in the affairs of fintech companies, demanding transparency and sound governance practices to ensure the sustainability of firms in the industry.

If the link between corporate governance and success is so clear, why are some fintech firms still experiencing gaps and, in some cases, unwilling to establish a robust governance structure? Our research has revealed four recurring challenges:

In a recent publication by Punch Newspaper, it was confirmed that an astounding number of Nigerian start-ups collapsed within the first five years due to their inability to operate clearly spelt-out corporate governance structures. Since we have identified the most common reasons why corporate governance often takes the back seat in fintech, we must also propose some steps that fintech firms can take in improving the governance culture. The steps include:

Notice that the importance of the Board of Directors keeps coming up when we look at ways to ensure sound governance. This goes to show that the subject matter must be owned at all levels within the organisation, and an effective Board ensures and follows up that this happens as there is no greater risk to an organisation’s survival than poor governance. This includes financial, legal and reputational harm.

Generally, a good Board of Directors is a balanced team with complementary skill sets and a culture that allows them to work together to make the most effective decisions. To maximise the efficacy of the board, fintech companies may do the following; clearly define roles and responsibilities, examine board structure, revise formal operating procedures, keep track of decisions and actions, evaluate board composition, understand board culture, and finally, the CEO should engage with board members.

To summarise, sound corporate governance in the fintech industry will establish direction for companies, encourage business integrity, promote financial viability and build trust with investors and the community. Corporate governance is a continuous process and gaps in enforcing it can no longer be ignored. The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) has affirmed its supervisory role in ensuring financial system stability. The corporation is collaborating with regulators and other global stakeholders in order to develop supervisory measures, particularly for digital banks.

We want to hear your thoughts, how can fintech companies rise up to the corporate governance expectations placed on them? Comment below to continue the conversation.

Some existing regulations in corporate governance are: Guidelines on Mobile Money Services in Nigeria by the Central Bank of Nigeria(CBN), Guidelines for FinTech Regulatory Sandbox by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),  Guidelines for Data Protection Compliance in Nigeria by National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), Framework for the Provision of Value Added Services by Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), Value Added Tax Act by Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), NIBSS Industry Standards and Operating Guidelines by Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS).

In our next series on Building Resilience in Fintech Business, we will take a closer look at Risk Management and Compliance.

…Continue Reading HERE