Listen to this Post
How a Local
In Nigeria’s bustling tech space, where innovation often collides with institutional opacity, one startup is refusing to stay silent. Izesan Limited, a homegrown EdTech firm dedicated to revitalizing African languages through digital learning tools, has publicly called out Co-Creation Hub (CcHUB) for what it describes as a lack of transparency in the selection process of the Mastercard Foundation EdTech Fellowship program. Through an emotionally driven open letter, the company challenges what it views as a systemic dismissal of grassroots innovation in favor of more polished, well-connected startups.
The letter, which has already begun to stir debate within Nigeria’s tech ecosystem, accuses CcHUB of ignoring its applications despite fulfilling core criteria aligned with the Fellowship’s mission. As CcHUB remains silent, Izesan’s plea is igniting a broader conversation about fairness, inclusion, and what it truly means to support African solutions to African problems.
Izesan’s Battle for Recognition: A 30-Line Digest
Izesan Limited, an EdTech startup based in Nigeria, has publicly questioned the integrity of the Mastercard Foundation EdTech Fellowship selection process managed by Co-Creation Hub (CcHUB). In an open letter released on May 27, the company expressed deep frustration after being rejected three consecutive times without receiving detailed feedback.
The startup develops digital platforms to teach African languages and has partnered with schools, governments, and even international organizations like UNESCO. Despite its demonstrable impact and alignment with the Fellowship’s goals, including literacy and inclusive education, Izesan claims its applications were met with silence or vague rejections.
Founder Anthony Otaigbe emphasized that the startup had initially been interviewed for the program’s first cohort but was never contacted again. Their subsequent submissions were either ignored or dismissed, even as new fellows were publicly announced. This triggered the publication of the open letter.
The letter highlights that Izesan is not asking for charity but simply for fairness and clarity in the selection process. It criticizes what the team views as a pattern of favoring well-connected or foreign-funded startups, despite CcHUB’s public commitment to African-led innovation.
With a mission to restore dignity to indigenous languages and promote self-sustaining education solutions, Izesan argues that their work embodies the spirit of the Fellowship. They ask CcHUB to reflect on whether its programs genuinely support African-rooted innovation or simply reward those with better packaging and global ties.
As of now, CcHUB has not responded publicly to the letter. The silence raises further concerns about transparency and accountability within high-profile initiatives that promise inclusive growth in Africa’s education technology space.
What Undercode Say:
The controversy between Izesan Limited and CcHUB opens a wider conversation about how innovation is recognized and rewarded in Africa’s tech sector. It speaks to a recurring challenge for startups that operate outside of elite networks and global funding circuits. Despite its evident achievements, Izesan finds itself locked out of programs designed to uplift precisely the kind of work it does.
This situation brings to light several structural issues. First, it questions how selection panels define innovation. Is it about flashy presentations and investor-ready decks, or about grassroots impact and cultural relevance? Izesan’s work with indigenous language education is arguably more transformative than many startups solving surface-level problems. Yet, they remain underrepresented in high-profile opportunities.
Secondly, the lack of feedback highlights a deeper issue: opacity. When startups are rejected without explanation, it prevents learning, growth, and fair competition. A simple policy requiring reviewers to provide constructive feedback could significantly improve trust in the ecosystem. It would also show that programs like CcHUB’s are committed to capacity building, not just funding the best-looking proposals.
Thirdly, this situation touches on the ethics of gatekeeping in African tech. Who gets to decide what’s “worthy” of support? If local, self-funded innovators with real impact are passed over in silence, it sends a discouraging message to future founders who might not have external backers or Silicon Valley polish.
CcHUB, for its part, has built a reputation as a leading innovation hub across Africa. But reputations come with responsibility. Its partnership with the Mastercard Foundation adds another layer of accountability, as both organizations position themselves as champions of inclusive, Pan-African development. The current silence contradicts that narrative.
Izesan’s stance should be seen as a brave act of advocacy. By demanding transparency, they are not just fighting for themselves but for a system that serves all innovators equally. Their call for fairness and clarity resonates across a continent where many local voices still struggle to be heard.
If this issue is swept under the rug, it risks alienating the very community these initiatives aim to empower. But if it sparks a re-evaluation of review mechanisms, criteria, and communication strategies, it could lead to a more honest, equitable future for African tech.
Transparency isn’t a luxury in this context. It’s a necessity.
Fact Checker Results:
✅ Izesan has publicly raised concerns over transparency in the CcHUB fellowship
✅ The company has shown impact through school and institutional partnerships
✅ CcHUB has not issued a public statement in response to the open letter 🧐
Prediction
If institutions like CcHUB and the Mastercard Foundation do not address these concerns transparently, it may result in growing distrust among grassroots innovators. More startups may begin voicing their frustrations publicly, sparking a ripple effect that forces tech hubs and grant programs to adopt clearer, more inclusive selection processes. Conversely, if CcHUB responds constructively, it could set a precedent for openness and fairness in African innovation programs.
References:
Reported By: www.legit.ng
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.twitter.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
