When a public institution like Nigeria’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sounds an alarm about a company’s practices, the response from that company matters just as much as the warning itself. That was the case recently when the SEC issued a press release about Property World Africa Network (PWAN), cautioning the public against investing in its real estate investment offering, PWAN MAX. According to the SEC, PWAN is not registered to solicit investments and appears to be operating in a way that shares traits with a Ponzi scheme. The commission pointed to unusually high returns and failure to honour withdrawal requests as troubling signs.
PWAN responded swiftly, but not effectively. The company denied the SEC’s characterization, calling it inaccurate and misleading. It explained that its real estate “Buy-Back” offering is not a typical capital market product and claimed it falls outside of SEC’s jurisdiction. The company added that if a clear regulatory framework were introduced for its type of business, it would comply.
At first glance, this might seem like a confident and measured reply. But on closer examination, PWAN’s response shows a series of misjudgments that damaged its credibility rather than defended it.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
One of the first mistakes PWAN made was treating the SEC’s warning as a misunderstanding, rather than a serious allegation. By focusing its energy on the legal technicalities of regulation, arguing that its operations don’t fall under existing SEC rules, it appeared to dodge the real issue. The concern was not just about regulatory definitions, but about the safety of investors’ money and the trustworthiness of PWAN’s practices.
This kind of response may satisfy lawyers, but it doesn’t satisfy the public. People who have given their money to PWAN, or were considering doing so, are less concerned about whether an investment product fits into a specific legal category, and far more concerned about whether the company can be trusted to return their funds when promised. In ignoring this basic emotional truth, PWAN lost an opportunity to connect with its audience and reassure them.
Even more concerning was PWAN’s complete silence about the experiences of its investors. The SEC specifically mentioned that withdrawal requests had not been honoured, yet PWAN’s statement did not even acknowledge that this had happened. There was no apology, no explanation, and no empathy. That absence sent a clear message, even if it wasn’t intended: that the company was more interested in protecting itself than in helping the people who might be hurt by its actions.
Exhibit 1: Between SEC and PWAN
Rather than offering clarity or transparency, PWAN chose to hide behind legal language. It said it had taken legal advice, and that its activities were not covered by current regulations. It promised future cooperation, but only if new rules were introduced that explicitly apply to its kind of business. This approach may work in a courtroom, but in the court of public opinion, it simply doesn’t hold up. When trust is in question, people look for moral responsibility, not legal loopholes.
The company’s tone also made things worse. There was no warmth in its statement, no concern for investor worries, and no sign that the company was listening. Instead of sounding like a business leader addressing its community, the response read like a legal memo. It felt distant, defensive, and corporate.
What could PWAN have done differently? Quite a lot. For starters, it could have acknowledged the concerns raised by the SEC and the confusion felt by the public. It could have spoken directly to its investors, offering a clear breakdown of how its business works and what measures are in place to protect client funds. It could have promised to improve transparency or even paused some operations while it worked with regulators to clarify the situation.
Exhibit 2: Emerged struggled legitimacy network
Most importantly, PWAN could have responded with a sense of care and responsibility. Instead of leading with denial and legal jargon, it could have shown leadership by saying: “We hear your concerns, and we want to be transparent and accountable.” That kind of message doesn’t require an admission of guilt, it requires an understanding of trust and the responsibility that comes with managing other people’s money.
When trust is at risk, the best response isn’t to retreat into legal details or insist on technicalities. It’s to meet people where they are, speak with honesty and empathy, and offer real steps forward. PWAN had a chance to do that. Unfortunately, it chose the opposite path, and it may be a long time before it earns the benefit of the doubt again.