What the panel can work with
A strong nomination reads like a clear account of real action. Start with the person’s name, where they helped, and the specific problem they stepped into. A neighbour who organised meals during a long hospital stay is easier to assess than someone described only as caring. The same applies to teachers, volunteers, carers and first responders. The details matter because they show effort, context and follow-through.
Judging is helped most by actions, evidence and outcomes rather than admiration alone. That means a nomination should explain what happened, how often it happened and what changed for the community around them. If the person worked with a local soup kitchen in Braamfontein, for example, mention the number of days they assisted, the kind of work they did and who benefited. Plain facts give the story shape.
- Name the nominee and their community role.
- Explain the action in plain terms, not praise.
- Show the outcome for other people, not only intent.
- Use dates, places and examples where you can.
Writing the story without overdoing it
A nomination does not need polished language. It needs honest detail. Short sentences are fine if they stay specific. A sentence like “She drove three elderly residents to clinic appointments every Tuesday for four months” carries more weight than “She is always helpful”. The first line shows a habit, a pattern and a real service to others.
If you are writing for someone in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Gqeberha or Polokwane, keep the description local and grounded. Say what they did in their own setting, whether that was a township home, a school gate, a clinic queue or a community hall. A good story gives the panel enough to understand the person’s contribution without adding noise.
- Use one main example and build from there.
- Keep the timeline clear, even if it was informal work.
- Say who was involved, when possible, and what they needed.
- Avoid vague phrases like “always there” unless you explain how.
Evidence that strengthens a nomination
Evidence does not need to be complicated. It should simply support the story. A photograph, a short statement from a community member, a school note, a clinic record, a rota, or a group message can help show that the work happened. The best evidence ties directly to the action being described. If someone organised food parcels, include what was organised and how it reached people, not only a photo of a smiling group.
When the programme reviews nominations, the aim is not to reward the most polished file. The aim is to understand whether the nominee’s actions were real, relevant and useful to others. Clean, relevant evidence helps the judging process without drowning the story in paperwork.
- Match each piece of evidence to one part of the story.
- Use clear names, places and dates where available.
- Leave out anything that does not support the nomination.
- If you have little evidence, explain the situation carefully.
Consent and privacy before you submit
Before a nomination is sent in, the nominee should know they are being put forward. Consent matters because this is a public-facing awards programme and personal details must be handled with care. The person being nominated should understand what will be shared, what may stay private and how the nomination may be reviewed. If they are a minor or vulnerable person, extra care is needed and the submission should avoid exposing sensitive information.
Privacy also matters for the nominator. Use only the information needed for the review process. If a story includes illness, family circumstances or safety concerns, keep those details tightly focused and relevant. Our contact form can be used for questions about consent, privacy and sensitive information, especially where a nomination needs careful handling.
- Get clear permission from the nominee where possible.
- Share only the details needed for judging.
- Avoid unnecessary medical or family information.
- Explain any sensitive point in the briefest useful way.
How judging looks at the nomination
The judging process looks at whether the story is credible, whether the actions are meaningful and whether the outcome is visible to others. A moving back story can help context, but it should not replace the actual contribution. A nomination for a teacher might show extra tutoring, support for struggling learners and a visible improvement in attendance or confidence. A nomination for a carer might show regular support, practical help and the effect on the person receiving care.
In plain terms, the panel needs to see what was done, how it was sustained and why it mattered. That is why a nomination that stays close to actions usually performs better than one that only describes kindness. The process is not looking for perfect wording. It is looking for substance.
For people nominating from Gauteng, the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape, Limpopo, the Free State, North West or Mpumalanga, the same rule applies. Keep it clear, keep it local and keep it tied to action. A strong nomination can travel well when it is built on facts.
After you submit, keep the record tidy
Once a nomination has been sent, save the version you used and keep your supporting notes in one place. That makes it easier to update the nomination later if you realise a date was missing or if a better piece of evidence becomes available. If the nominee’s role changes, add only what is relevant to the original story. The point is to keep the submission accurate, not crowded.
A practical nomination is easy to read, easy to follow and honest about what was done. It gives the programme enough detail to assess the contribution without turning the story into a speech. That balance is usually where the strongest nominations sit.
For updates, public questions and nomination changes, use our contact form through the contact page.
