What I’d Tell You is a Kryvent series featuring experienced leaders across the social impact ecosystem. In each conversation, we ask them to look back on what they’ve built and what they’ve learnt from occupying different roles within the sector. The aim is to pass something useful on to the next generation of nonprofit and social enterprise founders building across Africa.

Today’s guest is a lawyer, impact investment strategist, and social impact consultant with over six years of experience across government projects, nonprofits, and international development institutions. Her work spans policy, project and programme management, and impact investment strategy. She is the managing director of one of Africa’s development consulting firms.

Hello, can you introduce yourself?

Hi, I’m Sarah Solomon-Eseh. I’m a lawyer and the Managing Director of Nolton Africa, an impact and capital advisory firm for social impact organisations across Africa. We advise nonprofits and social enterprises on strategy, capital, and impact.

Our work is about building institutions for social impact. That goes beyond nonprofits and social enterprises to include the institutions that support the sector. We also provide capital advisory to people and organisations deploying capital, from donors to foundations, helping them think about how their funding can create sustainable impact.

Our thesis is that a lot of money flows into Africa, and you often hear people say that Africa has money and capital. That’s not entirely wrong. We do have capital, although much of it isn’t intended for development. Remittances and similar financial flows are sometimes presented as potential sources of development finance, but I don’t entirely agree with treating them as capital that is readily available for development.

For us, the question is how that capital can actually create impact. It’s not just about deploying capital; it’s about directing it towards sustainable enterprises and initiatives that can deliver the impact needed.

It’s also about rethinking how capital is structured. Not everything has to go through grants. We work with capital providers to structure funding, build partnerships, and increase access to capital for institutions accelerating social impact. That’s what I do.

Your professional background is in law. What drew you away from traditional legal practice and towards development consulting?

I have a very interesting perspective on my career. I’m passionate about everything I do. I loved traditional legal practice. I practised for a while and thoroughly enjoyed it. I worked mainly on election petitions, as well as some corporate and criminal cases. The hours were deadly, but I loved the work we could do.

Growing up, I read a lot of crime novels. I wanted people to live in a peaceful society, and that was where my passion lay. When I was about to enter university, law was the closest thing to criminology that I could see, so I studied law, and I’m very grateful I did.

I practised for over a year before Nolton Africa came along as an assignment from God. But I’m passionate about everything I do. I’m what you might call a jack of all trades, and I’m also great at compartmentalising. I didn’t hate legal practice; I simply discovered other things I loved. I worked in communications and loved it. I took on a project role and loved that too. I’ve also worked in a school with children, and I loved that as well. My career has been multidimensional. I’ve always enjoyed working and making an impact through what I do.

But when I think about what I find truly fulfilling, it comes down to accelerating impact and actually solving problems. The fact that people around us are still living in poverty, and that Nigeria and the African continent are still developing, tells us there are huge problems left to solve.

Nolton Africa describes itself as Africa’s transformation studio. What problems did you notice in the sector when you started that other organisations weren’t addressing?

Nolton Africa has transformed quite significantly since I started it. I didn’t envisage many of the problems we’re solving today or the range of organisations we now serve. But I’m glad we’ve evolved as much as we have.

When I started Nolton Africa, I had already worked in a nonprofit, and I knew how difficult things could be. One of the most obvious challenges was access to grants and other forms of capital. Organisations struggled to access funding, not necessarily because capital wasn’t available, but because they lacked the institutional capacity and knowledge to access it.

I experienced this challenge myself. I worked in a startup organisation as Programme Director, and securing capital was part of my responsibility. I know how long it took me to secure our first $10,000. After that, I went on to work with organisations implementing projects worth $4 million and, later, to consult for organisations managing projects worth millions of dollars.

Those experiences opened my eyes to what organisations could do differently. That was how Nolton Africa came about.

Initially, our work focused on training, consulting, and strategy development. Those are still important parts of what we do, but our work has expanded considerably. We now develop strategies for international organisations, not just Nigerian ones, and provide capital advisory, research, and insights. We also assess the impact of social investments to understand whether they are achieving their intended outcomes and whether the strategies behind them need to change.

But our original vision hasn’t changed. We want to help resolve Africa’s development challenges in two ways: by strengthening and transforming institutions in the sector, and by increasing access to capital for organisations working to create social impact.

You’ve spoken about capital and organisational sustainability. Nolton Africa’s Grant to Revenue Clinic helped organisations and founders explore financial sustainability, and you’ve now introduced VUKA Accelerator, a cohort-based approach. What led to that shift?

The Grant to Revenue Clinic started as a paid service at Nolton Africa. Founders would come in, and, much like a clinic, we would assess their organisations to identify potential revenue-generating activities. That is still part of what we’re doing through VUKA, an accelerator that helps organisations that have traditionally embraced charitable models explore more enterprising approaches.

The one-on-one clinic was great, but the truth is, we couldn’t do as much as we wanted. Sometimes, we had five to ten organisations in a group session lasting two to three hours. And even with the research we had done and the methodology we had developed, we knew we couldn’t transform an organisation from a charitable model to an enterprise in a single session.

At best, we could examine what an organisation was doing, suggest an alternative model, and introduce new ways of thinking about its work. But we didn’t have enough time to test those assumptions.

The idea of social enterprise isn’t new globally, but it’s still relatively unfamiliar to many African organisations. When people think about solving a problem in agriculture, for instance, they might immediately think about training farmers. They don’t always consider whether there’s an enterprise they could build around that problem. Yet you have social enterprises doing things like making chocolate from cocoa while supporting farmers and addressing challenges across the value chain.

The Grant to Revenue Clinic helped us start those conversations. By speaking directly with founders, we could see how ready they were to explore alternative models, where they encountered bottlenecks, and what resistance they had to the idea. We used those insights to develop the methodology we’re now testing with VUKA’s first cohort.

I’m really looking forward to the cohort starting because we have amazing founders doing amazing things. We’re also working to ensure they have access to the resources they need to make the most of the experience.

You mentioned that some founders push back against the idea of changing their models. What are the common challenges you encounter when helping them move from grants and individual donations towards generating revenue?

To be fair, generating revenue involves selling, and that’s very different from operating a charitable model. The first challenge is getting founders comfortable with putting a price on a product or service.

Many founders are quite open to identifying an enterprise their organisations could develop. We’ve spoken with founders across West, East, and Southern Africa, and our VUKA facilitators also come from these regions. But one of the biggest challenges is helping founders develop the muscle for selling. Building a business isn’t easy, and there’s no magic wand.

Let me give you an example. There was a founder who paid school fees for children. She wanted to keep doing that, but it wasn’t sustainable because she didn’t have the money to continue funding it herself. So she was applying for grants. But grants are more competitive now, which means we need to rethink the model, how we’re creating change, and what it actually costs to deliver that change.

These are questions people often assume only business owners need to ask. But funders and social investors are asking them too. What’s the unit cost of creating this impact?

I attended a conference earlier this year where someone presented work on preventing teenage pregnancy among girls. The figure discussed was around $2 per girl. Think about what that means: if you want to reach 100,000 girls, you can estimate the cost by multiplying $2 by 100,000.

We’re increasingly being asked to explain how we calculate the change we create and what it costs to achieve it. You can’t simply report what you’ve done this year without explaining how you’ll sustain it next year.

When I spoke with the founder working on education, one possibility I suggested was education financing. She was open to exploring alternatives, but it wasn’t easy. She hadn’t yet developed the skills to design, brand, and sell a product. That’s very different from designing a programme and applying for grants. The difference is night and day.

For me, social enterprise offers a sweet spot because it brings purpose and money together. A business can generate revenue without necessarily prioritising its social impact. A social enterprise, however, deliberately considers both. For example, in Nigeria, concerns about contaminated products and agricultural practices show why the way a business operates matters, not just what it earns.

The goal isn’t simply to make money. It’s to combine purpose with revenue in a way that allows the organisation to sustain its work and its impact.

That’s why we need more funders and donors willing to invest in accelerators that strengthen the business skills and systems of these organisations. That includes digital and financial systems, pricing, and business development. These founders have chosen to combine profit with purpose, and they need the right support to make that model work.

Applications for VUKA’s first cohort have closed. What do you look for in organisations that are ready for an accelerator like VUKA? And more broadly, what should an organisation have in place before considering a move towards generating revenue?

I would separate these into two questions, and I’ll tell you why. If an organisation has never operated a charitable model and simply wants to start a social enterprise, it might not need to have all these things in place. It could be someone starting small, even working for themselves to solve a problem in their own way. I wouldn’t want to impose stringent requirements on such people.

For VUKA, however, we wanted organisations with a strong thesis. We looked at the problem they wanted to solve. In business, not every problem represents a market demand. You have to consider market demand and product-market fit. You might not find customers for every product, or it might be much harder to find them for some products than others. So, first, we wanted to know: are you solving a problem that people really feel?

We also looked for organisations that had been operating for at least 12 months and could demonstrate the impact of their work. We were flexible about sectors because we wanted to use this first cohort to test our assumptions and understand how the approach might work across different sectors.

We also wanted organisations with some experience managing funding, including grants, and demonstrable impact from their work.

For me, though, one of the biggest considerations was whether founders understood the work involved in making the transition and were ready to commit to it. We included questions to assess their mindset and readiness, followed by one-on-one interviews with shortlisted applicants to explore those areas further.

Moving away from VUKA, the cuts to USAID funding have sparked renewed conversations about remittances and their role in development. You previously announced WAVRI, a fund that invites people in the diaspora to contribute towards tackling poverty. What have you learnt about how Africans give?

When we conceived WAVRI, our idea wasn’t necessarily limited to African donors in the diaspora. The thesis was simple: if the average African contributed ₦10,000 a month, we could build a fund to address development challenges.

In practice, it hasn’t been as smooth or straightforward as we thought. And I wouldn’t put that down to WAVRI alone. We’ve had some internal challenges, and I’ve also been questioning whether this is the model we want to pursue. So, we haven’t made as much progress as we initially intended.

One thing I’ve learnt is that remittances don’t necessarily translate into development funding. Think about it this way: if I’m in the UK and send money to my mother in Nigeria, that money might help her take care of something at home. It’s serving a specific personal or family need.

I understand why people in the development sector are interested in remittances as a potential source of development funding, especially when we’re thinking about how to build funds for the sector. But we shouldn’t assume that money sent home will automatically become money available for development initiatives.

Another thing I’ve learnt is that, although studies suggest Nigerians give generously, much of that giving isn’t necessarily directed towards organised development initiatives. So there’s work to be done to make supporting these causes something people want to participate in and feel good about.

Despite our slower progress, we still have about eight people contributing to WAVRI every month. We’re grateful for that, even as we continue to work out how to move the initiative forward.

We’ve discussed grants, revenue, and social enterprises. But in other parts of the world, many charities continue to operate traditional charitable models and provide aid. Based on your consulting experience, what mistakes should organisations avoid if they want to remain charitable organisations while improving their access to grants and other funding?

I’ll be very honest. One mistake I see in the sector is that we don’t always understand the different types of organisations that exist. Someone might say, “Sarah, I want to start a foundation,” when what they actually want to do is establish a charitable organisation that receives grants to run its programmes.

In some contexts, a foundation is an institution that provides funding to other organisations. So, when you’re seeking international partnerships or funding, you need to understand how the organisations you’re approaching define these terms and what they expect from the institutions they work with. You can’t simply call your organisation a foundation and assume that grants will follow. You need to be clear about the kind of organisation you’re building, what it does, and how it will be funded.

Secondly, I’m not against the charitable model. I believe there are better ways to build and run charitable organisations. This is about sustainable development. We can’t keep going round in circles without making meaningful progress. Even if you’re operating a charitable model, you need a solid approach to creating change that can be sustained.

Let me give you an example. Imagine two organisations trying to address the problem of out-of-school children. One focuses on paying school fees, while the other develops a technology-based learning programme in which children learn with the guidance of a mentor. Both can operate as charities, but a funder might be more interested in the second model if it has the potential to be replicated and scaled.

You could test it with 100 children, assess whether it works, and then expand to one million, depending on the results and the funding available. That’s still a charitable model. The difference is that you’ve designed an approach with the potential to reach more people.

I’m not against charity. What concerns me is when, for example, we distribute rice on Christmas Day without thinking about the bigger picture. There’s nothing wrong with spreading love that way. I would personally love to own orphanages where I could take in children and care for them. But I’d also want to ensure that those children don’t have to depend on one plate of rice every Christmas. I’d want to think about what it would take to provide consistent care and improve their lives over time.

Even if you’re operating a charitable model, you need to understand business principles. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to create lasting change.

It also pains me that people sometimes hear “nonprofit” and assume the organisation isn’t serious or is simply distributing food. There are different kinds of nonprofits. OpenAI, for example, began as a nonprofit organisation. Nonprofits can conduct research, develop technology, and pioneer solutions to complex problems. The idea is that they’re addressing problems without distributing profits to shareholders.

So, for anyone looking to establish a nonprofit or charitable organisation, my advice is to apply sound business principles. Develop a clear strategy, establish a solid operating model, put the right governance structures in place, and make sure your organisation is ready to receive and manage funding responsibly. Those foundations matter if you want to attract capital and use it effectively.

Finally, in the spirit of What I’d Tell You, what is one thing you’d tell the African nonprofit sector to believe differently about itself as we look towards 2026 and beyond?

One thing I strongly believe is that African organisations can solve African problems.

I’m open to knowledge-sharing and learning from models in other parts of the world, but I believe in local development because the people closest to a problem often have a better understanding of its context and what it takes to solve it.

I’ve worked with different organisations, including consulting for organisations in the UK and Switzerland, and I know we have the capacity and intelligence to do this. We have what it takes.

I also believe we have resources within the continent. Nigeria’s First Lady recently said something to entertainers about starting foundations to solve problems, and it got me thinking. Many of the foundations we look to for funding, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, were established using private wealth that was then organised into institutions capable of funding solutions.

We have people with resources in Africa, too. If more of them established foundations and structured them to support solutions to our development challenges, we could build institutions that continue to make a difference over the next decade and beyond.

We have the capacity, we have the intelligence, and we have the resources. We need more people with the resources to build institutions that can fund solutions to the problems we face across Africa.

Many thanks to Sarah Solomon-Eseh  for this conversation.

To learn more about Nolton Africa and its work in development consulting, impact strategy, and helping organisations strengthen their institutions and explore new pathways to funding, follow them across social media at Nolton Africa.

If you found this conversation insightful, leave a comment and follow Kryvent Afrika here for more conversations with people shaping Africa’s development sector.