A Federal High Court in Lagos has rejected a request by Access Bank Plc to freeze the bank accounts of MTN Nigeria, following a contentious legal dispute involving a ₦180.95 billion debt claim. The case stems from a long-expired infrastructure-sharing agreement originally signed with now-defunct Multi-Links Telecommunications.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Akintayo Aluko ruled that MTN must be given a chance to respond before any interim injunction can be granted. Access Bank, alongside three firms in receivership—Multi-Links Telecommunications, Capcom Telecoms, and Cyancom Limited—had filed for a Mareva injunction, a legal order designed to prevent the dissipation of assets during ongoing litigation.
According to court documents, the bank sought to halt MTN from accessing funds in all its Nigerian accounts, claiming the sum in question represents outstanding obligations from the decade-old fibre infrastructure deal. The plaintiffs also requested that all financial institutions disclose MTN’s account balances within a week.
The judge, however, emphasized the importance of due process. “Given the gravity of the orders sought and the existing documentation, the defendant must be allowed to be heard,” he said, referencing internal communications marked “MTN 17.” The matter has been adjourned to June 23, 2025, for further hearings.
Background of the Dispute
At the heart of the conflict is a fibre-sharing agreement signed over ten years ago between MTN and Multi-Links. While the deal provided both companies with reciprocal rights to use each other’s network infrastructure, Multi-Links fell into financial trouble, leading to its receivership under the management of Diamond Bank—now a part of Access Bank following a 2019 merger.
MTN is accused of overusing Multi-Links’ infrastructure without adequate compensation, while Multi-Links’ use of MTN’s network reportedly remained minimal. The situation became more complicated when a company named Hoop Telecoms claimed to have acquired Multi-Links’ fibre assets. Hoop subsequently demanded nearly ₦170 billion in retroactive charges from MTN—a move MTN rejected, citing lack of legal standing due to Hoop’s absence of a valid telecom license.
According to internal sources, Access Bank’s involvement appears to stem from its inherited role as the receiver of Multi-Links. It allegedly aligned itself with Hoop’s claims in pursuit of a legal settlement, which MTN has actively resisted.
Implications and Outlook
While the judge’s ruling offers MTN temporary relief, the larger legal battle is far from over. The court’s decision to delay any asset freeze signals the complexity of the dispute, which touches on legacy contracts, the limits of receivership claims, and broader issues within Nigeria’s telecom and financial sectors.
Insiders suggest that private negotiations may now be underway, with both MTN and Access Bank reportedly exploring a possible out-of-court resolution. However, industry observers warn that the case could set a significant precedent for how old telecom agreements are enforced—and how new ones are structured.
This legal clash comes at a time when MTN is no stranger to regulatory pressures. In recent months, the company has dealt with multiple court cases, including actions involving the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and ongoing tax scrutiny.
With MTN expected to file its formal response by June 23, all eyes will be on the court to see how this high-profile commercial dispute unfolds.
