Business
AMCON responds to allegations from Grant Properties promoter, Olajide Awosedo
Published
7 years agoon

The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and its receiver manager have been brought to the center of a media circus owing to the allegations of Olajide Awosedo, chairman of Grant Properties Limited, against the corporation. AMCON has now given a detailed response to the allegations.
WHO IS OLAJIDE AWOSEDO?
Mr. Olajide Awosedo is the promoter of Grant Properties which is currently under receivership due to debts owed AMCON. AMCON was established under the AMCON Act 2010 to acquire non-performing loans known as “Eligible Bank Assets” (EBA) from Nigerian banks. These assets are now held on behalf of 180 million Nigerians. It has been reported that over 80% of these debts are owed by a few elite Nigerians who deploy huge resources to avoid paying back the debts. One such debtor is OlajideAwosedo who was indebted to over nine banks to the tune of N22 billion. Awosedo’s other company – Havilah Villas Limited is also indebted to Heritage Bank and Access Bank. Its assets in Ogun state were seized by AMCON in June 2017 over a N4.68 billion debt. Awosedo also owes First Bank N2billion plus interest arising from a development called Goshen Beach Estate. As a result First Bank, Sterling Bank, Wema Bank, Unity Bank, Access Bank, Skye Bank and the other banks are all trying to recover their loans.
WHEN AWOSEDO’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS REACHED A HEAD
Awosedo’s financial problem crystallized when he left the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for the Labour Party having failed to secure the Ogun State governorship Ticket. He proceeded to contest the governorship contest using borrowed funds and was unsuccessful. OlajideAwosedo made another unsuccessful attempt through the Accord party which further compounded his financial situation. As a result he was unable to repay his mounting debts. It has been alleged that Awosedo used part of the N8 billion he borrowed from the consortium of banks, meant for real estate development, to fund his governorship campaign in Ogun state.
Mr. Awosedo’s various debts arose from unpaid loans relating to the development of Goshen Beach Estate Lekki (First Bank), Victory Park Estate Lekki ( Sterling Bank, Wema Bank, Unity Bank and Skye Bank ) and Havilla Gardens Ogun State (Access Bank formerly Intercontinental Bank and Heritage Bank). It is claimed that he also owed FCMB, Diamond Bank, United Mortgage Bank and Providus Bank. These debts have been subject to court cases, court judgments and EBAs now acquired by AMCON.
THE BEGINNING OF AWOSEDO’S TROUBLE WITH BANKS AND AMCON
According to a source privy to this case, in 2002 the Lagos State government under the private developers’ scheme allocated 46 hectares of land to a company called Knight Rook Limited. But the company was unable to pay for the land; Lagos state demanded for a bank guarantee to cover the payment. Grant Properties the promoters approached a consortium of banks for the Bank Guarantee. Grant Properties was a shareholder of Knight Rook Limited before transferring its shares to the four banks led by Sterling Bank in 2006. At all times the property belonged to Knight Rook Limited and not Grant Properties.
The Victory Park Estate debt under reference arose due to this failed obligation to Lagos State Government. Grant Properties had approached the four banks in 2003 (Sterling Bank, WEMA Bank, Unity Bank and Skye Bank) for the Bank Guarantee to be issued in favor of Lagos State Government for a Site and Services estate Scheme. The lead bank was Sterling Bank (formerly NAL Bank). Mr. Awosedo was a staff of NAL Bank before resigning to enter private business.
Grant Properties failed to make payment on the due date and Lagos State claimed the due funds on the Bank Guarantee from the four Banks. Since the property was in the name of a company called Knight Rook Limited and the banks fully paid for the Land. (Awosedo did not contribute any money to the purchase of the property). The Banks demanded for their funds which were not forthcoming. Therefore in 2006 the bank foreclosed and all the shares of Knight Rook Limited were transferred to the four banks and the Banks appointed directors to Knight Rook Limited which meant that the banks fully owned Knight Rook. Grant Properties transferred all its shares to the banks and Mr. Awosedo and his wife resigned from Knight Rook Limited. Knight Rook secretariat and administrative matters were domiciled with Sterling Bank as the Lead Bank.
By an MOU, the Banks also appointed Grant Properties as developer to develop the phase 1 of 90 flats in Victory park estate. The Banks also funded and sponsored the phase 1 development. The Four Banks also paid the salaries of Awosedo’s staff during the period and customers paid deposits to the banks for the phase 2 development. The Banks did not charge any interest during this period because it was an investment. Upon completion of Phase 1 , the construction loan granted by the Banks remained unpaid and the project was declared a loss.
At this point, the debt figure was about over N10 billion. The consortium of banks explored every avenue to recover their money without success.
The Banks later discovered that OlajideAwosedo diverted 9 of the flats to his children and family which was an abuse and breach of trust. As a result all four banks were unwilling to provide further loans and the loan was classified as a bad debt. The banks further resolved to transfer the debt to AMCON. However, before the debt could be purchased by AMCON, the banks needed to refund all the creditors and depositors.
Grant properties proposed the sale of 10 hectares to raise funds to repay some of the debts. The four banks gave Grant Properties over 2 years to find a buyer but Grant properties informed the banks that they could not find a buyer due to the economic situation. So the Banks found a buyer and sold the 10 hectares and then refunded all the depositors with the proceeds. In the process the banks lost a lot of money. This meant that even if the land was sold at a higher price, Grant Properties would NOT have received the money because it would have been applied to repay the remaining debts which were written off by the banks before they transferred the EBA to AMCON. The 4 Banks also agreed to transfer the remaining 14 hectares to AMCON as consideration for the EBA purchased from the banks. Considering the fact that this was depositors’ money and pressed in a tight corner, the banks sold the bad debt to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON). The corporation bought the liability for N5.1 billion which was not enough to cover the N10 billion debt sum which meant that the Banks lost another N5 billion on the debts.
Meanwhile Awosedo of Grant Properties continued to sell parcels of land in Victory Park Estate, Lekki, to unsuspecting buyers even after AMCON had acquired the asset. AMCON considered this action fraudulent and took legal action against him. Awosedo then petitioned AMCON claiming that the Banks sold the 10 hectares without his knowledge and that the 10 hectares sold by the Banks was part of the 14 hectares belonging to AMCON and that he was not involved or aware of the sale of the 10 hectares by the four banks. He also claimed that the property was sold below the true market value.
Further investigation by AMCON and the CBN found his petition to be false and untrue. AMCON found that the banks acted within the bounds of the law, and that sale of the assets to refund the depositors was legal. Contrary to the claim by Awosedo that the banks sold “his land” after AMCON had acquired his debt. The corporation confirmed that the sale of this asset (10 Hectares) happened before its acquisition of the liability. AMCON also found that he had been aware of the sale of 10 Hectares, that the proceeds were used to refund depositors and subscribers for buildings which Awosedo failed to deliver, that most of the refund cheques and deposits were handled by Grant properties and Awosedo. In refunding the subscribers, the lead bank (Sterling Bank) issued cheques, which were then handed over to Grant Properties Limited for distribution. Grant Properties Limited not only acknowledged the cheques but replied with corrections to be made in the name of some subscribers. Consequently, contrary to the petition, MrAwosedo, through his companies was clearly involved in the sale of the 10 hectares and distribution of the proceeds of same.
AMCON discovered that Awosedo had fraudulently sold 2 Hectares of the 10 Hectares to unsuspecting buyers at N24,000/ sq meter. AMCON also discovered that the sales proceeds were diverted by Grant Properties and the proceeds were not used to pay down the bank debts or the AMCON EBA. The four banks had sold the 10 hectares – at N18,500/sqmeter (about N1.85 billion) to Real Estate Development Company (RED) before AMCON took over the assets. RED sold 2.4 hectares of this land to UAC Property Development Company at the rate of N26,000/ sqmeter. The price was higher because the value of the property had appreciated owing to the construction of a pivotal access road – Oba Akinloye Way. The entire 10 Hectares is now fully developed with over 300 families living in the estate.
Notwithstanding the above, AMCON negotiated between the two parties and sought an amicable resolution. Awosedo demanded for N750 million, the difference between N26,000/ sq meter price sold to UAC and the N18,000/ sq meter purchase price of RED (despite having sold two hectares at N24,000/ sq meter). Mr. Awosedo put his demands in writing offering to accept N600 million which was applied to reduce his liability to AMCON. The Banks counterclaimed through Sterling Bank that Awosedo withheld the proceeds of nine developed apartments valued at N270 million and the sales proceeds of two hectares. After protracted negotiations and mediation by AMCON, the banks agreed to forfeit the 9 apartments valued at N270 million and 10% of the EBA proceeds valued at N510 million. AMCON wrote to the banks confirming the final settlement and the four banks replied through sterling bank accepting the offer with the condition that AMCON will compel Awosedo and Grant properties to accept the same. AMCON replied and accepted the terms. AMCON is therefore now also bound by the terms of settlement reached by both parties.
However, Mr.Awosedo commenced a legal action in 2012 – in the name of Knight Rook Limited (despite being fully aware that Knight Rook Limited was by this time wholly owned by AMCON and not having AMCON’s permission to do so) – purportedly to challenge the sale of land to UAC in SUIT NO: LD/576/12 – GRANT PROPERTIES LIMITED & ANOR V. UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PLC& ANOR. Throughout this case, Mr.Awosedo never disclosed, until he was challenged, that he did not have AMCON’s authority to sue in the name of a company wholly owned by AMCON. The defendants contested his authority to sue, at which point his counsel – a senior advocate of Nigeria BonajoBadejo SAN admitted the lack of authority to initiate the case in the name of Knight Rook Limited and Knight Rook Limited was struck out as a plaintiff in the suit (but inexplicably then joined as a defendant); more materially, Mr.Awosedo also never disclosed to the court that the issue had been resolved at his instance by AMCON. In June 2017 the high court nullified the transfer of 2.4 hectares to UAC but the court reaffirmed that the entire property still belonged to Knight Rook limited which was owned by AMCON. Awosedothen approached AMCON requesting to benefit from the judgment but AMCON as a responsible organization chose to honor the terms of the resolution earlier reached with all parties.
THE JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL HIGH COURT SACKING GRANT PROPERTIES
In 2015, a Federal High Court in Lagos had ruled that the asset in dispute was the property of Knight Rook, not Awosedo’s Grant Properties. So, having resigned from the Knight Rook and transferring his shares to the four banks, Awosedo had no legal right to the asset. During the court case against UAC, Grant properties suppressed this information from the Lagos State court to his advantage. This forms part of the grounds of appeal by UAC in the Court of Appeal.
AMCON, which played a mediatory role between the consortium of banks and Grant Properties, says Awosedo has no legal right to Knight Rook or to its assets according to the 2015 judgment.
Mr. JideOlasetin, a legal representative of the corporation, disclosed that the banks made 100 percent payment for the assets. He said Grant Properties made no single contribution to the purchase and development of the assets. He said the banks had exercised legal authority on the assets.
As required by law, AMCON duly gave Knight Rook Limited and thus Mr.OlajideAwosedo and his companies notice of the acquisition of their debts.
Today the assets belong to 180 million Nigerians and it is held in trust by AMCON until all the debts are recovered. Thus no amount of blackmail or intimidation will change the position of the Federal Government or AMCON until all the debts are paid.
The position of AMCON is unassailable and this position has been further confirmed “On 3rd October 2017, in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/744/17 – AMCON V. KNIGHT ROOK LIMITED & ORS, Hon Justice Buba of the Federal High Court (FHC), Lagos entered judgment in favour of AMCON against Knight Rook Limited& 5 Ors in the sum of N12, 566,910,191.00 plus interest.Counsel to Knight Rook Limited who was in court submitted to judgment stating that having reviewed records there was no defence to the claim while the other defendants including Mr.OlajideAwosedo who were duly served with the originating processes and had appeared in court through counsel prior to that day and had also applied for and obtained copies of all processes filed through their counsel, were absent and had Judgment entered against them in default of defence, pursuant to the extant provisions of the AMCON Practice Direction 2013,” AMCON said.
“Buba J also made an order forfeiting all and any residuary rights, which Mr.OlajideAwosedo may have to Knight Rook Limited amongst other orders.
“AMCON immediately executed this judgment by attaching and taking possession of the chattels and landed properties (including Victory Park Estate) which the receiver/Manager, Mr.LanreOlaoluwa,had earlier taken possession of Victory Park Estate and other assets of Mr.OlajideAwosedo and his companies. The receiver/manager, in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in that regard, handed over all those assets to AMCON.”
As a result of this action OlajideAwosedo has embarked on a smear campaign against individuals in AMCON and the banks on the social and print media. This blackmail is a usual strategy employed by chronic debtors who are unwilling to pay their debts. But AMCON and its senior management are undeterred.
According to the corporation, Justice Buba of the Federal High Court, Lagos ruled in October that Awosedo had no residuary right to Knight Rook. AMCON says the judgment also gave it the necessary legal muscle to acquire the assets.
This judgment, from a constitutional court, validates the action of AMCON.
Related
Sahara weekly online is published by First Sahara weekly international. contact [email protected]

You may like
Business
Nigeria’s Captured State: How MultiChoice Weaponized Laws to Protect Its Empire
Published
24 hours agoon
March 25, 2025
THE CAPTURED BENCH: HOW MULTICHOICE AND ITS ELITE LAWYERS WEAPONIZED NIGERIA’S COURTS TO CRIPPLE DEMOCRACY, DEFY REGULATIONS AND EXPLOIT THE NATION
Price hikes and silenced watchdogs
In March 2025, Nigerians woke up to find that DStv and GOtv subscription prices had shot up by 20-25%. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) immediately announced plans to investigate. Consumer advocacy groups were hopeful. Finally, someone would check whether Multichoice was abusing its market power, But once again, the courts stepped in. Multichoice’s lawyers, led by Moyosore Onibanjo, rushed to file an ex parte motion, claiming the FCCPC had no right to regulate pricing in a “free market.” Justice Omotosho issued an order that stopped the FCCPC from even looking into the matter. No debate. No hearing. Just a swift injunction.
For many Nigerians, this was the final straw. Complaints poured in on social media: “Why can’t our regulators do anything?” and “Is DStv above the law?” People couldn’t help noticing that every time an agency tried to act, a new court order appeared.
Corporate Leviathan
In Nigeria’s rapidly evolving media landscape, Multichoice Nigeria Limited, operators of DStv and GOtv, has long positioned itself as a market leader. However, recent revelations from the National Security Advisor’s office paint a starkly different picture: one of a corporate giant systematically deploying legal warfare to evade accountability, undermine regulatory bodies, and render agencies like the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) powerless. Over the past decade, Multichoice has weaponized Nigeria’s judicial system, securing a litany of court orders to stall investigations, invalidate regulations, and shield itself from sanctions. This report unravels the company’s calculated strategy to transform regulators and security agencies into “toothless bulldogs,” highlighting key cases, complicit judicial actors, and the broader implications for Nigeria’s regulatory framework.
In Nigeria, where media freedom once thrived, Multichoice Nigeria (owners of DStv and GOtv) have used legal tricks to dodge regulators and crush competition. What started as a success story turned into a corporate takeover of Nigeria’s broadcast industry. Multichoice’s legal team weaponized court technicalities to weaken government agencies, turning oversight into a joke.
The 2021 Default Judgment Debacle (FHC/ABJ/CS/1386/2021) Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Vs. NBC
It was a brisk morning in Abuja when news of Justice James Omotosho’s decision sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s broadcasting circles. In a case that had once promised to empower the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the judge instead dealt a stunning blow to the commission’s authority—one that many believe would change the fate of broadcast regulation in the country.
The Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights took the NBC to court. They contended that the commission’s sanctions were not only heavy-handed but also a violation of natural justice. Justice Omotosho had already handed down a sweeping judgment—a permanent injunction that barred the NBC from levying any fines on broadcast stations.
In a bid to overturn the ruling, the NBC filed a motion that the earlier judgment was reached without due process. The NBC had sought to sanction Multichoice for breaching broadcast codes. Justice Omotosho dismissed their plea, and critics argue this set a dangerous precedent: regulators could now be punished for procedural oversights while corporations enjoyed judicial leniency.
This case set a precedent for regulators’ procedural missteps being exploited to entrench corporate impunity. By framing the NBC as negligent, Multichoice and allied entities secured judicial cover to bypass accountability. The significance of the ruling in this case, is to the effect that a regulator does not have the powers to impose sanctions for a breach of a defined law or regulation, which is an anomaly.
The 2024 AGI Heist (FHC/ABJ/CS/652/2024) Multichoice Nigeria Ltd. & Details Nigeria Ltd. v. NBC)
In a sweeping 2024 judgment, Justice Omotosho again ruled in favor of Multichoice, declaring Section 2(10)(b) of the NBC Code ultra vires for mandating 2.5% of broadcasters’ gross income as Annual Gross Income (AGI). The court redefined “annual income” as revenue minus production costs, slashing Multichoice’s liability. It also upheld a disputed 2020 waiver agreement, binding the NBC to accept fixed payments far below statutory rates. The ruling not only invalidated critical NBC regulations but also rewarded Multichoice for years of underpayment, costing the federal government an estimated N32.5 billion in lost revenue. The pattern again was to invoke functus officio to block regulatory appeals and framing Multichoice as the “vigilant” victim against “indolent” agencies.
The Price Hike That Sparked a Legal Firestorm
FCCPC vs. MultiChoice: A Legal Battle Over Price Hike
On March 1, 2025, MultiChoice raised DStv and GOtv subscription fees by 20-25%, citing rising costs. The move, barely a year after the last increase, triggered public outrage, with many accusing the company of exploiting its market dominance.
However, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) had summoned MultiChoice and its CEO on February 27, to appear for an investigative hearing to explain its decision to increase rates starting on March 1. The commission expressed concerns about frequent price hikes, potential abuse of market leadership, and anti-competitive practices. However, instead of complying, MultiChoice filed an ex parte motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 3, seeking to block FCCPC’s intervention.
On March 12, Justice James Omotosho known for his pro-corporate rulings, granted Multichoice’s request. In his decision, he restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against the company pending the determination of the case. The ruling effectively shields Multichoice from regulatory scrutiny, allowing it to proceed with the price hike while the FCCPC remains powerless to act. Critics have slammed the decision as a blow to consumer rights and a victory for corporate impunity.
The 2025 Ex Parte Order: EFCC and NBC Gagged
In a recent court order granted in March 2025 and filed under Suit No: FHC/L/CS/179/25 (Multichoice & Details Nigeria Vs. EFCC, NBC & Anor) reveals Multichoice’s desperation to avoid scrutiny. The EFCC had launched an investigation into the company’s alleged underpayment of Annual Gross Income (AGI) and refusal to submit financial records dating back to 2014. Instead of complying, Multichoice accused the EFCC and NBC of “harassment” and violating its “fundamental rights.”
Justice Omotosho, without hearing the regulators’ side, issued a sweeping injunction:
a. Blocked Arrests: Barred the EFCC from inviting or detaining Multichoice staff.
b. Froze Investigations: Halted demands for financial documents, including evidence of AGI remittances.
The ruling effectively halts Nigeria’s anti-graft agency from probing (a) ₦32.5 billion in unpaid levies (as established in the 2024 AGI case) and alleged tax evasion tied to creative accounting of “programming costs.”
The Legal Playbook: How Courts Became Corporate Tools
Multichoice’s tactics follow a ruthless blueprint:
1. Forum Shopping: Multichoice repeatedly filed cases in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, where judges like Omotosho became reliable allies. Legal experts accuse the company of “judicial engineering”—handpicking courts to secure favourable rulings that redefine regulatory authority.
2. Killing Competition: When the NBC amended its code in 2022 to break Multichoice’s stranglehold on exclusive content (like Premier League rights), the company sued. Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa sided with Multichoice, declaring that “private contracts trump over public interest.” The decision cemented Multichoice’s monopoly, leaving smaller rivals unable to compete.
3. Redefining the Rules: In 2024, Multichoice challenged the NBC’s Annual Gross Income (AGI), arguing that its 2.5% fee should apply to profits, not gross revenue. Justice Omotosho agreed, slashing Multichoice’s contributions by billions of naira. The ruling starved the NBC of funds meant to support local broadcasters, widening the gap between corporate giants and struggling independents.
4. Pre-emptive Strikes: At the first hint of regulatory action, Multichoice files lawsuits to paralyze investigations. In 2025, when the Federal Competition and Consumer
5. Protection Commission (FCCPC) probed sudden price hikes for DStv subscriptions, Multichoice secured an exparte order from Justice Omotosho—blocking the inquiry before regulators could present their case. Critics called it a “judicial coup.”
Consequently, Nigeria’s judiciary stands accused of enabling corporate impunity. Justice
James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, emerges as the central figure in Multichoice’s legal fortress. Between 2021 and 2025, he presided over at least seven high stakes cases involving the company, each time ruling in its favour with near-scripted consistency.
The Fallout: Toothless Bulldogs and a Captured State
The cumulative effect of these rulings is a regulatory landscape where:
* NBC is financially crippled, unable to collect lawful levies or enforce content rules.
* FCCPC is barred from investigating blatant consumer exploitation.
* Judicial Complicity: Courts prioritize corporate rights over public interest, with certain judges becoming repeat enablers.
The lawyers behind the scenes
Behind all of Multichoice’s courtroom triumphs are two powerful Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs): M.J. Onigbanjo and Moyosore Onibanjo. Their tactics are legendary among legal circles in Abuja.
a. Onigbanjo the Codebreaker: Known for pre-emptive strikes, he files lawsuits against regulators just before they finalize audits or announce sanctions. By flipping the script, he forces agencies to defend themselves rather than go on the offensive.
b. Onibanjo the Ex Parte Maestro: Skilled at obtaining secretive court orders, he convinces judges that immediate action is needed—often without the regulators being present. Critics have called this “judicial malpractice.”
Their Playbook:
1. Judicial Engineering: Handpick courts and judges.
2. Weaponize Rights: Frame investigations as “rights violations.”
3. Delay Tactics: Adjourn cases for years (e.g., the EFCC suit is stalled until May 2025).
The Global Playbook – How Multichoice Replicated Its Nigerian Model and the Pushback
While Nigeria’s anti-graft agencies and courts remain paralyzed by legal maneuvers favouring Multichoice Nigeria, other African nations are mounting fierce resistance against the South African media giant’s monopolistic tactics. From Malawi’s bold expulsion of the company to South Africa’s billion-dollar fines, a pattern of defiance is emerging across the continent—one that starkly contrasts with Nigeria’s capitulation to corporate impunity.
Malawi’s Stand: “Follow the Rules or Leave”
In August 2023, Malawi became a beacon of regulatory courage. When Multichoice attempted to hike DStv subscription prices without approval, the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) secured a court injunction to block the increase. Multichoice retaliated by halting new subscriptions and threatening to exit the country. “We don’t negotiate with bullies,” declared MACRA Director General Daud Suleman. By September 2023, Multichoice withdrew entirely, abandoning 200,000 subscribers. “Malawi’s laws protect its people, not foreign profits,” Suleman added.
Sierra Leone: Slapped with a “Profiteering” Fine
Sierra Leone’s National Telecommunication Commission (NATCOM) took a similarly hardline stance in 2023, fining Multichoice R968,000 (Le250 million) for “unfairly profiteering” after the company blamed currency fluctuations for price hikes. NATCOM Chair Momoh Conteh accused Multichoice of “exploiting our people under the guise of exchange rates.” The regulator threatened to shut down DStv operations unless the fine was paid within a week—a move hailed by consumer groups.
Kenya’s Football Revolution: Breaking the Monopoly
In 2017, Kenya’s Competition Authority (CAK) ordered Multichoice to share exclusive English Premier League rights with rivals like Zuku TV, declaring the company’s monopoly “anticompetitive and destructive.” After a two-year legal battle, CAK Director Wang’ombe Kariuki announced: “No single entity can hoard content that belongs to the people.” The ruling opened Kenya’s airwaves to fair competition, a model now praised across East Africa.
South Africa’s $3.7 Billion Reckoning
In its home country, Multichoice faced its toughest blow yet. In 2017, South Africa’s
Competition Commission found the company guilty of anti-competitive practices, including hoarding sports rights to crush rivals. The penalty? A staggering 10% of annual revenue—$3.7 billion.
“No corporation is above the law here,” said Commissioner Tembinkosi Bonakele. By 2022, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) had clawed back another $500 million from Multichoice after uncovering years of profit under-declarations.
Nigeria: The Captured Market
While its neighbours fight back, Nigeria remains a glaring exception. In 2023, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) settled a N1.8tn ($1.27bn) tax claim for the Multichoice Nigeria operation and a $342m claim for value-added tax dispute with Multichoice for just N35.4bn ($37.3m) —a colossal and unjustified discount.
Breaking the stranglehold
In hushed conversations across government offices and civil society groups, there’s a growing belief that Nigeria must reclaim its regulatory powers—or risk sinking deeper into a state of corporate capture. Some propose that the National Judicial Council (NJC) investigate the repeated pattern of rulings in Multichoice’s favor. Others call for a new Broadcast Industry Reform Act that would strengthen the NBC’s authority. Also, the National Security Adviser must probe the question whether judges collude with Multichoice’s legal team and whether there is economic sabotage whereby preemptive lawsuits have been used to stifle Nigeria’s broadcast sector regarding the Multichoice’s ₦32.5 billion levy evasion.
Nigerians are frustrated by skyrocketing subscription fees and a sense of helplessness. Yet without coordinated action from the courts, lawmakers, and the executive branch, these calls for justice may remain just that—calls.
For now, Multichoice continues to operate in Nigeria with near-impunity, while the rest of the continent moves toward stricter enforcement. The central question remains: “Will Nigeria’s institutions stand up for the public interest, or will the nation remain a haven for corporate giants who know how to work the system”?
Until something changes, the courts will keep issuing orders, regulators will keep hitting walls, and ordinary Nigerians will keep wondering why the rules seem to favour the powerful over the people. The stage is set for a showdown—one that could either reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to fair governance or cement its status as a captured state under the gavel of judges and unconscionable practices of members of the Bar.
Related
Business
Benin Republic, Togo Owe Nigeria $8.84M for Electricity, Payment Defaults Spark Concern
Published
24 hours agoon
March 25, 2025
Benin Republic, Togo Owe Nigeria $8.84M for Electricity, Payment Defaults Spark Concern
Nigeria’s power supply to neighboring countries has once again stirred controversy as Benin Republic and Togo have amassed a debt of $8.84 million for electricity consumed in the fourth quarter of 2024, according to a report by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC).
The report, which details remittance performance by both domestic and international customers, reveals a troubling trend—Nigeria’s electricity market is facing low payment compliance from its international consumers, raising questions about the financial sustainability of its cross-border power supply.
Nigeria’s Struggle to Recoup Power Debts
According to NERC, the six international bilateral customers supplied by Nigeria’s power-generating companies (Gencos) were billed a total of $14.05 million in Q4 2024. However, they only managed to pay a meager $5.21 million, translating to a remittance performance of just 37.08%—a figure that underscores a persistent issue of payment default by international customers.
Among the top defaulters:
-
Paras-SBEE (Benin Republic) was billed $2.65 million but failed to make any payment.
-
Paras-CEET (Benin Republic) was invoiced $1.64 million but has not remitted a dime.
-
Odukpani-CEET (Togo) owes a staggering $2.37 million.
-
Transcorp-SBEE (Ughelli, Benin) paid only $1.71 million out of its $3.59 million invoice.
-
Transcorp-SBEE (Afam 3) settled just $0.90 million out of its $1.2 million bill.
The only international customer to fully pay its dues was Mainstream-NIGELEC, which settled its $2.60 million invoice in full—a sharp contrast to other defaulters, particularly Benin Republic and Togo.
Payment Defaults Extend Beyond International Borders
Nigeria’s domestic bilateral customers also showed a lackluster remittance performance, paying just ₦1.25 million out of the ₦1.98 million billed, a 63.36% remittance rate.
Additionally, special customers such as Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd and its host community failed to pay a single naira for their ₦1.27 billion (NBET) and ₦0.11 billion (MO) invoices. The NERC highlighted that this non-payment trend has persisted for years, urging the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) to intervene.
Is Nigeria’s Electricity Market Being Exploited?
The ongoing payment shortfalls from international customers have sparked debates about whether Nigeria should continue supplying power to countries that fail to meet their financial obligations. Critics argue that while Nigeria faces its own power shortages, it continues to supply electricity to Benin and Togo, who in turn fail to make full payments, thereby straining Nigeria’s electricity sector.
Despite Challenges, Nigeria’s DisCos See Revenue Growth
On the domestic front, Nigeria’s electricity distribution companies (DisCos) recorded a significant revenue generation of ₦509.84 billion in Q4 2024. This represents 77.44% collection efficiency—an improvement from 74.55% in Q3 2024.
While this signals better revenue collection within Nigeria, the lingering issue of international payment defaults remains a thorn in the side of the electricity market.
What’s Next?
With Nigeria’s international electricity consumers repeatedly defaulting on payments, energy sector analysts suggest that NERC must impose stricter payment conditions, reconsider supply agreements, or enforce sanctions against defaulters.
The big question remains: Will Nigeria continue to supply electricity to Benin and Togo despite their growing debts, or will stricter measures be put in place?
Related
Business
ADVANS TRADING CONSULT EMPOWERS NIGERIAN YOUTH AND STUDENTS THROUGH FOREX TRADING EDUCATION
Published
3 days agoon
March 23, 2025
ADVANS TRADING CONSULT EMPOWERS NIGERIAN YOUTH AND STUDENTS THROUGH FOREX TRADING EDUCATION
In a bid to demystify Forex trading and empower Nigerian youth and students with financial knowledge, Advans Trading Consult, under the leadership of its CEO, Mr. Akano Samuel, has successfully concluded the FOREX TRADING CLASS 1.0 training program.
The intensive three-day event, which took place from March 20 to March 22, 2025, at Federal Cooperative College, Eleyele, Ibadan, Oyo State, provided participants with in-depth insights into the opportunities within the Forex market.
Recognizing the widespread misconceptions that have discouraged many Nigerians from embracing Forex trading, the National Youth and Students Enterprise Group (NASEG), in collaboration with Advans Trading Consult, launched this initiative to educate and equip young people with the right skills to navigate the market effectively.
Speaking at the closing session, Olalere Benedict Adetunji, National President of NASEG, emphasized the need for financial literacy among youth, stating:
“Financial freedom does not answer to mere wishes or prayers but to knowledge, diligence, and strategic investments. For too long, Forex trading has been misrepresented, preventing many from leveraging its wealth-building potential. Through this training, we are changing that narrative and ensuring that Nigerian youth have access to legitimate opportunities for financial independence.”
Special appreciation was extended to Mr. Akano Samuel, CEO of Advans Trading Consult, for his unwavering commitment to empowering the next generation of traders. His dedication, expertise, and resources have played a crucial role in making this training a success.
The program witnessed active participation from youth and students eager to harness the potential of Forex trading. With this success, plans are already underway to expand the training to other states, ensuring that more young Nigerians can benefit from this initiative.
NASEG and Advans Trading Consult remain committed to equipping Nigerian youth with the tools they need for financial breakthrough. The journey has just begun, and we will not relent until young Nigerians fully harness the power of Forex trading for economic empowerment.
Olalere Benedict Adetunji
National President, National Youth and Students Enterprise Group (NASEG)
07061830662
Related
Trending
-
Business5 months ago
Comprehensive Media Audit Shows Flutterwave, MTN Nigeria, and Bolt Outpacing Competitors in Media Engagement
-
Politics6 months ago
Why Ighodalo Slammed ₦20 Billion Suit On Oshiomhole
-
Politics6 months ago
Campaign funds: LP Tasks NSA, EFCC to probe Obi, Yesufu, Afenifere
-
Politics6 months ago
Together we can make Ewekoro a better local government’ — Sikiru Adesina Urges Party Leaders, Co-contestants
You must be logged in to post a comment Login