Beyond the Bar: Law, Leadership and Influence

The legal profession is often seen through a narrow lens: courtrooms, transactions, and technical expertise but its impact extends far beyond, shaping institutions, influencing governance, guiding business decisions, and supporting economic growth. Beyond the Bar: Law, Leadership and Influence spotlights senior practitioners, regulators, and in-house counsel whose work drives leadership and institution-building. In this edition of Beyond the Bar, Amala Umeike, Partner at Stren & Blan Partners, speaks with Nkemakonam Umeadi-Onyedika on insolvency practice, reform gaps, and the future of business rescue in Nigeria.

Your practice has developed a strong focus on business rescue and insolvency. What drew you to this area of law, and how has that specialization shaped your career trajectory?

I was drawn to business rescue and insolvency because it sits at the intersection of law, strategy, finance and commercial judgment. It is one of the few areas of practice where a lawyer is not merely reacting to disputes, but helping to preserve value, protect jobs, stabilise businesses and create a pathway for recovery. I have always found that deeply compelling.

I am grateful for the opportunity to work at Stren & Blan Partners, where we are the pioneers in building a dedicated turnaround and restructuring practice in a Nigerian law firm. That specialisation and status as a market leader have shaped my career in a very meaningful way. It has allowed me to work on complex, high-stakes matters where legal advice must be commercially sound and practically executable. It has also positioned me to engage not only with legal issues but also with governance, stakeholder management, creditor negotiations, and broader turnaround strategy. In many respects, it has made my practice more multidimensional and has strengthened my perspective as both a lawyer and a business adviser.

How would you assess the current state of business rescue and insolvency practice in Nigeria, are we seeing real progress or just incremental change?

I would say we are seeing real progress, but it is still at an early and developing stage. The conversation has undoubtedly shifted. There is now greater awareness that distress does not always have to end in liquidation, and that the law can be used to preserve enterprise value through restructuring and rescue mechanisms.

That said, the progress is not yet as deep or as widespread as it needs to be. Practice is still evolving, directors of companies are largely yet to embrace formal restructuring tools, and in fact, a large number of them voraciously fight the process. Market participants are still adjusting, and some institutions are more comfortable with traditional enforcement routes than with structured rescue processes. So, I would describe the current position as genuine progress, but progress that remains incremental in its practical application. The legal architecture is improving faster than the market mindset and closing that gap will be critical for the future of the regime.

The introduction of business rescue provisions under CAMA 2020 was widely seen as a turning point. How effective have these reforms been in preserving distressed businesses?

CAMA 2020 was an important turning point because it introduced a modern rescue-oriented framework into Nigerian corporate insolvency law. That is significant because without the right legal tools, even viable businesses can collapse under temporary financial strain. The reforms created a platform for administration and other restructuring options that can, in the right circumstances, preserve businesses that would otherwise have been lost.

In terms of effectiveness, I would say the reforms have been promising, but their full potential has not yet been realised. The framework has improved the possibilities for preserving distressed businesses, but effectiveness depends on much more than legislation. It also depends on buy-in by directors, judicial confidence, creditor cooperation, professional capacity and commercial willingness to pursue rescue over value-destructive enforcement. So, the reforms are directionally strong; the next phase is to strengthen implementation and deepen market confidence in the rescue process.

In your work advising struggling companies, what are the most common structural or operational issues that push otherwise viable businesses toward insolvency?

In many cases, the problem is not that the underlying business is fundamentally bad; it is that the structure supporting it has become unsustainable. One of the most common issues is a mismatch between cash flow and debt obligations, particularly where businesses are carrying short-term liabilities that do not align with the revenue cycle of the business.

We also frequently see weak governance, poor financial controls, overexpansion, inefficient cost structures, delayed receivables, foreign exchange exposure and inadequate working capital discipline. In some cases, the business is operationally sound, but the capital structure is simply too rigid. In others, management may have failed to respond early enough to warning signs. What turns stress into insolvency is often not one single issue, but a combination of structural weaknesses, operational leakages and delayed intervention.

What are the biggest legal and institutional bottlenecks that continue to hinder effective business rescue in Nigeria?

One major bottleneck is the limited level of institutional familiarity with rescue-based insolvency. Because the regime is still relatively new, there can be uncertainty in practice around process, interpretation and the commercial objectives of rescue proceedings. That can slow down decision-making at the very time when speed is essential as well as its acceptance by companies.

There are also broader challenges around judicial awareness and support, enforcement culture, access to rescue financing, and inconsistent stakeholder behaviour. Some creditors still prefer immediate enforcement, even where a structured rescue may produce a better overall outcome. We also need deeper professional capacity across the ecosystem, including the judiciary, insolvency practitioners, lenders and boards. Business rescue works best where institutions move quickly, predictably and with a shared understanding of value preservation. Nigeria is beginning to move in that direction, but there is still work to be done.

There is often a perception that insolvency signals failure rather than an opportunity for restructuring. How do you think this mindset affects outcomes, and what needs to change?

One of the persistent challenges we see in Nigeria is the tension between boards and the restructuring process, particularly where administration is initiated by creditors and ordered by the court. In many cases, boards instinctively resist the appointment of an administrator, even where the financial distress of the company is clear and objectively severe. This resistance is often driven by concerns around control, reputation, and, in some instances, a belief that the business can recover under existing leadership.

However, this is where a more balanced and modern understanding of corporate purpose becomes critical. Under the stakeholder theory of the firm, a company does not exist solely for the benefit of its shareholders or its board. It is an economic institution with responsibilities to a broader ecosystem, which includes the creditors, employees, regulators, and the wider society. Once a company reaches a point of insolvency or near-insolvency, the centre of gravity necessarily shifts from shareholder primacy to creditor protection and enterprise preservation.

In that context, the appointment of an independent administrator should not be viewed as a hostile takeover of management, but rather as a structured and court-supervised intervention designed to stabilise the business, protect value, and, where possible, achieve a better outcome for all stakeholders than liquidation would allow. The courts, in exercising their jurisdiction to appoint administrators, are effectively stepping into this broader stakeholder mandate, ensuring that the interests of creditors and the economic system are not subordinated to the preferences of an incumbent board.

That said, the conversation is not one-sided. Creditors must also approach administration responsibly, not as a blunt enforcement tool, but as a genuine rescue mechanism. Where used properly, administration creates a neutral platform for restructuring. Where misused, it risks undermining trust in the process.

Ultimately, what is required is a cultural and institutional shift. Boards must begin to see restructuring, including administration, not as a loss of control, but as a pathway to survival and value preservation. At the same time, creditors, regulators, and practitioners must continue to strengthen the integrity and predictability of the process. Only then can business rescue in Nigeria achieve its full potential.

Looking ahead, which sectors of the Nigerian economy do you anticipate will see increased restructuring activity, and what should stakeholders be preparing for?

I expect we will continue to see restructuring activity in sectors that are highly leveraged, capital intensive or particularly exposed to volatility. That includes real estate, energy, manufacturing, aviation, logistics, hospitality and certain segments of consumer-facing businesses. Many of these sectors are dealing with inflationary pressure, foreign exchange volatility, rising financing costs and operational inefficiencies, which together create significant stress.

Stakeholders should be preparing for earlier intervention, more rigorous financial monitoring and more sophisticated restructuring conversations. Boards should pay closer attention to distress indicators, lenders should think beyond pure enforcement, and management teams should focus on liquidity, governance and scenario planning. The businesses that navigate this environment best will be those that identify stress early and engage stakeholders before the situation becomes value-destructive.

Beyond your technical expertise, how has your leadership journey evolved as a Partner at Stren & Blan Partners, particularly in managing complex, high-stakes restructuring mandates?

My leadership journey has evolved from being primarily focused on legal execution to taking a broader responsibility for strategy, people and outcomes. In complex restructuring mandates, technical knowledge is essential, but leadership is what holds the process together. You are often managing multiple stakeholders with competing interests, making decisions under pressure and guiding teams through situations that are commercially and emotionally demanding.

I have learnt the importance of clarity, calmness and disciplined judgment. I have also become more intentional about building teams that can operate at a high level in demanding circumstances. For me, leadership in this space means combining technical excellence with commercial perspective, empathy, decisiveness and the ability to inspire confidence when the stakes are highest.