Business
“MTN OF FRAUD”?: How MTN allegedly smuggles billions to shell companies abroad, to evade tax in Nigeria
MTN has consistently prided itself as the foremost telephone company that is getting Nigerians talking the most. Now the South African company is about to set tongues wagging across networks with revelations that it has routinely been shipping billions of dollars overseas to avoid paying its fair share of tax in Nigeria.
An 11-month-long joint investigation by PREMIUM TIMES, Finance Uncovered and amaBhugane reveals that MTN has been running circles around Nigerian revenue authorities using a complex but noxious tax avoidance scheme called Transfer Pricing.
For any economy, it is a slow death.
The red flag was raised the moment our investigations showed that MTN Nigeria has been making payments to two overseas companies – MTN Dubai and MTN International in Mauritius – both located in tax havens.
It was discovered that in 2013 for example, MTN set aside N11.398 Billion from MTN Nigeria to pay to MTN Dubai. A similar transfer of N11.789 Billion was made by MTN Ghana to the same MTN Dubai, making it a total of N23.187 Billion that was shipped to the Dubai offshore account.
In a rare disclosure in 2013, MTN admitted it made unauthorized payments of N37.6 Billion to MTN Dubai between 2010 and 2013. The transfers were then “on-paid” to Mauritius, a shell company with zero number of staff and which physical presence in the capital Port Louis is nothing more than a post office letter box. The disclosure amounted to a confession given that MTN made the dodgy transfers without seeking approval from the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP), the body mandated to oversight such transfers.
On the basis of an earlier management fees agreement that was technically quashed by NOTAP and on the basis of MTN’s reported revenues, it is estimated that N90.2 Billion could have been transferred out of Nigeria in management fees alone since the company was founded in 2002.
Transfer Pricing
For corporate organizations determined to escape the taxman but still cleverly staying on the right side of the law, Transfer Pricing is the new cellar door constructed by the most ingenious of accountants. It is a new global disease to which Third World economies are the most vulnerable.
Multinationals employ Transfer Pricing to move their profits offshore, leaving behind a shrinking tax base in their host countries and inexorable cuts to public services.
In Africa, tax avoidance has been named as one of the factors holding the continent back by starving governments of the revenues it needs for development.
A report jointly commissioned by the United Nations and the African Union and drafted by a high level panel led by former South African president Thabo Mbeki considered tax avoidance by multinationals to be an “illicit financial flow” and a significant drain on government resources across the continent.
In total illicit financial flows, which included corruption and the proceeds of crime, were determined to be costing the continent $50 Billion a year $50bn.
Just last year, South Africa’s deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa had harsh words for tax dodgers. He said: “Tax evasion is not only a crime against the state; it’s also a crime against the people of our country, ordinary people.”
Curiously, the same Cyril Rhamaposa was non-executive chairman of the board of MTN between 2001 and 2013 before he became South Africa’s No.2 man. In effect, the same tax practices which the deputy president strongly condemned in his country as financial crime is vigorously being promoted in Nigeria.
MTN is the largest cell phone company in Africa with 227.5 million subscribers. The company, which operates in more than 20 countries across Africa and the Middle East, has Nigeria as its biggest operation.
Until now, tax justice investigations had focused on computer giants, corporations in the extractive industry, food and beverages; in fact everywhere but the mobile phone sector despite the cell phone industry in Africa being one of the largest and most important industries for the continent.
Mobile phone has been a cheap and quick way of rolling out the vital communications infrastructure that has underpinned Africa’s growth story over the last decade. As a result the industry has seen explosive growth. With 685million mobile phone users in Africa, the success story means that cell phone companies are now the largest contributor to government revenues in many African countries. That is when they pay their fair share of taxes.
Artificial operating costs
To pay little or no tax, companies determined to cheat begin by seeking ways to create artificial operating costs in the country where they operate. For example, a company is in Nigeria but has a parent or subsidiary company in another country. It makes huge profit but decides to declare a much lower profit-before-tax. To achieve this, it pays the parent and/ or subsidiary company for services not rendered and ships cash to them. Where services are rendered, the costs are inflated. Such services may include royalty for the use of brand name, procurement services, technical services and management services.
Typically, the recipient company is located in an offshore territory under a different financial jurisdiction. MTN has a substantial network of subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, including the British Virgin Islands, Dubai and Mauritius.
Because of the growing concerns that multinationals are using intra-company trading to shift profits around the world by overcharging for services delivered or in more extreme cases by creating artificial transactions where no services was rendered at all, respective countries have a maximum percentage of profits it can allow companies to pay out as management fees.
For example, in Senegal, accounts from the company Sonatel show that the company has a ‘cooperation agreement’ with parent company France Telecom that is capped at 1.43% of revenue.
Until 2010 MTN Nigeria had an agreement with MTN Dubai to pay 1.75% of revenues to the company for management, and royalties for the use of the MTN trademark. Nigeria requires that management fees paid by multinationals are approved by the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP). The fee payments had been reversed following a failure to come to a new agreement on management fees with Nigerian regulators.
MTN’s previous agreement with NOTAP expired in 2010.
Notwithstanding, MTN has continued to make payments overseas. When we sent questions to MTN over these unauthorized payments, the company told us that this was because they expected NOTAP to approve a new deal and backdate it to the date of the expiry of the previous deal.
MTN’s financial activities are now being questioned by more than one tax authorizes in Africa.
In Ghana the MTN subsidiary, Scancom, has been paying vast management fees to companies located offshore. Our investigations reveal that Scancom paid 758m GHS in management and technical fees to MTN Dubai between 2008 and 2013. This was 9.64% of the company’s revenue. Normally the maximum fee level allowed in Ghana is 6%.
We can reveal that the high levels of fees attracted the attention of Ghana’s intelligence services, which launched an investigation into “economic fraud” between 2012 and 2013.
MTN’s management fees need approval from the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC). The Ghanaian “National Security Taskforce” has called for a “review of all technology transfer and management service agreements currently held by GIPC to remove sections which are inapplicable and wrongly provided for” and upgrading and training of state systems and staff.
In response to this, MTN in Ghana told us: “The technical and management services agreements between Scancom and Investcom were duly approved by the GIPC.”
The current head of the GIPC is Mrs. Mawuena Trebarh, who between 2007 and 2012 was responsible for government relations at MTN Ghana. This reporting team asked Mrs Trebarh to comment on whether her previous role could be perceived a conflict of interest. She did not respond to our requests.
In response to our enquiries MTN confirmed that the company paid 12 billion West African Francs in 2012 and 14 billion West African Francs in 2013 in management fees to MTN International. The figure for 2013 is equivalent to 5% of the revenue made by MTN in Cote d’Ivoire.
Dubai paradox
Dubai is one of the places MTN ships huge profits to. Meanwhile, MTN does not operate any mobile phones in Dubai, yet it has significant operations in the small city state.
MTN told us that it employs around 115 people in Dubai who provides services to the MTN group such as group procurement, group finance, legal services, human resources and other corporate functions.
One tool that campaigners have said will be helpful is to look at company reporting on a country by country basis. If a company is making huge revenues in a country where it has few employees but there is a low tax rate, which would suggest that there may be some profit shifting taking place.
In Uganda, a dispute between the Uganda Revenue Authority and MTN has revealed that the company is paying 3% of its turnover in management fees to MTN International.
The fees have been challenged by the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) who issued MTN with a “notice of assessment” in 2011. This was for a number of tax issues between 2003 and 2009, but a large portion was to do with a dispute over management fees, most of which had been paid to Mauritius.
Correspondence between the URA and MTN seen by us show that the URA questioned the legitimacy of these fees, and pointed out that MTNI, the company providing “management services” to MTN Uganda had not spent any money in the years they had looked into. The URA said this could only mean two things: that management services provided to MTN Uganda had either already been paid for by MTN Uganda (and so MTN was in effect charging twice for the same thing) or they were never provided at all.
The Ugandan authority told the company: “We have repeatedly asked for evidence of specific work performed by MTN Group for MTN Uganda for each of the tax years 2003 to 2009. We have only been provided with very little information relating to 2009 and the latter years. This information is very far from justifying a payment of 3 per cent of MTN Uganda’s turnover as management fees.”
NOTAP keeps mum
Asked to confirm the amount of fees paid out to MTN Dubai and Mauritius based on the company’s reported revenue between 2002 and today, MTN told PREMIUM TIMES: “There is no disclosure obligation for this information in South Africa or Nigeria.”
Asked to explain the possible justification for MTN Nigeria to pay fees for management and technical services to a company with no employees, MTN said: “It is the contracting party’s prerogative as to how it elects to discharge its contractual obligations.”
Meaning is that MTN Mauritius can perform its task without a single staff member.
PREMIUM TIMES made sustained efforts to get NOTAP and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to comment on the MTN practices in Nigeria.
The Director in charge of Technology Transfer and Agreement, Ephraim Okejiri, initially pleaded that he was in a meeting, and that the reporter should wait.
But after over four hours of waiting, he sent a secretary to say he would not be able to give any information on MTN.
Similarly at Nigeria’s tax agency, the Federal Inland Revenue Service, the Director of Public Communications, Emmanuel Obeta, who had earlier promised on three occasion to make information available on the matter suddenly had a change of mind.
He said relevant officials who should provide him with the information sought were all not available.
Additional report by Bassey Udo
Riceocracy: When Tinubu and the APC Government Substitutes Governance with Handouts
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
“Tinubu’s administration faces mounting criticism as rice palliatives replace real solutions to Nigeria’s deepening crisis.”
ABUJA, Nigeria — March 17, 2026
A growing wave of public frustration is sweeping across Nigeria as citizens decry what has now been dubbed “Riceocracy” a governance pattern where the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) respond to systemic failures with the distribution of rice rather than meaningful reforms.
Across the country, from major cities like Lagos and Abuja to underserved rural communities, Nigerians are voicing anger over persistent issues: no stable electricity, deteriorating road networks, unaffordable fuel and cooking gas, and a struggling education system. Yet, in response to these structural problems, the government’s most visible intervention has been the distribution of food palliatives; particularly rice.
The central figures in this unfolding crisis are President Tinubu and the APC-led federal and state governments, who have overseen the rollout of these relief measures. On the other side are millions of Nigerians battling rising inflation, joblessness, and declining living standards.
The trend gained momentum following the removal of fuel subsidies in May 2023, a policy decision by the Tinubu administration that triggered a surge in transportation and commodity prices. By 2024 and into 2025, the government intensified the distribution of rice and other palliatives as a stopgap measure to quell public discontent. Now, in 2026, the approach has become a defining feature of the administration’s response to economic hardship.
The “Riceocracy” phenomenon is nationwide. Reports from states such as Kano, Rivers, and Borno show large crowds gathering for rice distribution exercises, even as basic infrastructure continues to decay. Urban centers are not exempt; in cities like Lagos, residents still grapple with erratic power supply and high living costs despite periodic palliative programs.
Analysts point to political convenience and immediate optics. Distributing rice is quick, visible, and politically advantageous, especially in a climate of widespread hardship. However, critics argue that it reflects a deeper governance failure; an inability or unwillingness to implement long-term solutions.
Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka has long warned against superficial governance, describing such approaches as “a betrayal of democratic responsibility.” In the same vein, global economist Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has stressed that “palliatives may provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace sound economic management and structural reform.”
Political economist Pat Utomi offers a sharper critique: “A state that reduces its responsibility to food sharing risks institutionalizing poverty rather than eliminating it.” His statement captures the growing concern that Nigeria’s leadership is addressing symptoms rather than causes.
The implications are severe. Nigeria’s power sector remains unreliable, forcing businesses to depend on costly alternatives. Road infrastructure continues to hinder economic activity, while the education sector suffers from underfunding and frequent disruptions. Despite these challenges, rice distribution has become the most consistent government response.
Critics further argue that this strategy fosters dependency and weakens civic engagement. Instead of demanding accountability, citizens may feel compelled to accept handouts as substitutes for rights and services. Allegations of mismanagement and politicization of palliative distribution also persist, raising questions about transparency and fairness.
The term “Riceocracy” may sound satirical, but it reflects a sobering reality. It highlights a governance model where survival replaces development, and where public policy is reduced to emergency relief rather than strategic planning.
As Nigeria marks this moment on March 17, 2026, the message from scholars, civil society, and frustrated citizens is unmistakable: rice cannot fix a broken system. Only deliberate investments in infrastructure, education, energy, and economic productivity can restore confidence and chart a sustainable path forward.
Until then, the image of Nigerians queuing for bags of rice will remain a stark symbol of a nation still searching for leadership that goes beyond palliatives to deliver real progress.
ZENITH BANK OPENS MANCHESTER BRANCH TO SUPPORT CROSS-BORDER TRADE AND INVESTMENT
Zenith Bank Plc has announced the opening of a new branch in Manchester, United Kingdom, marking another significant milestone in the bank’s international growth and its commitment to strengthening financial connections between Africa and global markets.
The official opening ceremony, scheduled to hold on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, is expected to attract government officials from Nigeria and the United Kingdom, regulators, investors, customers, and business leaders from both countries, underscoring the growing economic ties and investment opportunities between the two markets.
The new Manchester branch will complement Zenith Bank’s existing operations in the United Kingdom and serve as a strategic hub for supporting businesses engaged in international trade and investment. Through the branch, the bank will provide corporate banking, trade finance, treasury and related financial services to clients operating across the United Kingdom, Europe and Africa.Speaking ahead of the launch, the Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Zenith Bank Plc, Dame Dr. Adaora Umeoji, OON, said: “The opening of our Manchester branch represents another important step in Zenith Bank’s growth as a leading African financial institution connecting businesses and markets across continents. Manchester is one of the United Kingdom’s most dynamic commercial centres, and our presence here will further strengthen financial connections between businesses in the UK and opportunities across Africa’s rapidly expanding markets.
”Founded in 1990 by its Founder and Chairman, Jim Ovia, CFR, Zenith Bank has grown into one of Africa’s most respected banking institutions, boasting a robust capital base and a remarkable history of year-on-year profitability. Built on a strong foundation of people, technology and service, the Bank has consistently delivered innovative financial solutions while maintaining a disciplined approach to growth and risk management. The impressive performance of the Bank has consistently earned it excellent ratings, recognition and endorsement from local and international agencies and institutions.Headquartered in Lagos, Nigeria, Zenith Bank operates over 500 branches and business offices across the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Bank currently operates subsidiaries in several African countries including Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia, and Cote d’Ivoire, while maintaining a presence in major international financial centres including the United Kingdom, France, UAE and China.
In recent years, Zenith Bank has continued to expand its international network as part of its strategy to support global trade and investment flows involving Africa.Manchester, widely regarded as one of the United Kingdom’s most vibrant economic centres, hosts a diverse base of businesses across sectors such as manufacturing, engineering, logistics, technology and consumer goods. The city’s strong commercial ecosystem and international outlook align closely with Zenith Bank’s expertise in corporate banking, structured finance and trade finance.The Manchester branch will work closely with the Bank’s London operations and its broader international network to support clients seeking to expand across markets and unlock new opportunities in both the United Kingdom and Africa.
With the opening of the Manchester branch, Zenith Bank continues to advance its vision of building a truly global African banking institution that connects businesses, facilitates trade and investment, and creates stronger economic bridges between Africa and the world.
Business
New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu
*“New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu*
An energy policy group has advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to reconsider the wider economic consequences of newly issued permits allowing marketers to import petrol into the country, warning that the move could undermine Nigeria’s efforts to strengthen domestic refining and stabilise the economy.
In a statement released on Sunday in Abuja, the Energy Transparency and Market Justice Initiative (ETMJI) said the approvals granted by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) could produce unintended consequences if not carefully managed.
The group’s president, Dr. Salako Kareem, said Nigeria was at a delicate moment in its energy transition and that policy choices made now would determine whether the country finally escapes its decades-long dependence on imported refined petroleum products.
Kareem said while the regulator’s responsibility to guarantee adequate fuel supply is understood, expanding import permissions at this stage could weaken the policy direction required to encourage local production and long-term sector stability.
“Our respectful appeal to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is that decisions concerning petrol importation must be carefully weighed against their long-term economic consequences,” Kareem said.
“Nigeria has spent decades trying to overcome the paradox of being a major crude oil producer while relying heavily on imported refined products. Any policy action that appears to reopen the floodgates of importation may slow down the progress that has been made toward strengthening domestic refining capacity.”
He warned that increasing petrol imports could place additional pressure on the country’s foreign exchange reserves, especially at a time when the government is pursuing difficult economic reforms aimed at stabilising the naira and improving fiscal discipline.
“For many years, the country has lost enormous volumes of foreign exchange importing petroleum products that could ideally be refined locally,” Kareem said.
“If import volumes begin to rise again, the demand for foreign currency will inevitably grow. This could place renewed strain on the naira and undermine the broader economic stabilisation programme that the government is currently pursuing.”
The group also warned that excessive reliance on imported petrol could create opportunities for product dumping and the entry of substandard fuel into the Nigerian market, a challenge that has troubled regulators and consumers in the past.
According to Kareem, Nigeria’s downstream sector has historically struggled with quality control issues whenever importation becomes widespread, because imported fuel often travels through multiple intermediaries before reaching domestic depots.
“One of the lessons from the past is that when imports dominate the supply chain, the market sometimes becomes vulnerable to the dumping of inferior petroleum products,” he said.
“This not only creates regulatory complications but also exposes Nigerian consumers to fuels that may damage vehicles, affect industrial machinery and ultimately impose hidden economic costs on the country.”
He added that encouraging domestic refining and strengthening local supply chains would provide better product traceability and improve overall market transparency.
Kareem stressed that the group’s intervention was not intended as criticism of the NMDPRA, noting that regulators must often make complex decisions to prevent supply disruptions in a volatile energy market.
However, he urged the federal government to ensure that short-term supply management does not weaken long-term national objectives in the petroleum sector.
“We recognise that the regulator has the responsibility to ensure that Nigerians do not experience fuel shortages, and that duty is extremely important,” he said.
“But at the same time, policy coherence is essential. The country must avoid sending signals that could discourage investment in local refining or create uncertainty about Nigeria’s commitment to energy self-sufficiency.”
Kareem said Nigeria now has a rare opportunity to restructure its downstream petroleum industry in a way that strengthens domestic production, protects foreign exchange reserves and builds long-term industrial capacity.
He urged the president to ensure that the country’s regulatory framework reflects that strategic vision.
“Our appeal is simply for policy alignment. If Nigeria truly wants to build a resilient energy economy, then every major decision in the downstream sector must reinforce the goal of reducing import dependence, strengthening domestic production and protecting the country’s economic stability,” Kareem noted.
The group added that careful policy coordination between regulators and the presidency would help ensure that Nigeria avoids repeating the costly fuel import cycles that have historically drained public resources and weakened the national economy.
-
society6 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
news3 months agoWHO REALLY OWNS MONIEPOINT? The $290 Million Deal That Sold Nigeria’s Top Fintech to Foreign Interests
-
society6 months ago“You Are Never Without Help” – Pastor Gebhardt Berndt Inspires Hope Through Empower Church (Video)
-
society7 months agoWho is Chief Kestin Pondi? Niger Delta’s “People’s Chief” Winning Hearts With Hundreds of Millions in Generosity
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
You must log in to post a comment.