A Federal High Court in Lagos has declined Access Bank Plc’s request to freeze the bank accounts of MTN Nigeria Communications Plc over a disputed N180.95 billion debt claim linked to a long-expired infrastructure-sharing deal with now-defunct Multi-Links Telecommunications.
Justice Akintayo Aluko, ruling on an ex parte application filed by Access Bank and three companies in receivership, Multi-Links Telecommunications Limited, Capcom Telecoms Limited, and Cyancom Limited, refused to issue an interim order freezing MTN’s funds.
The judge held that MTN must first be given an opportunity to be heard before any such drastic action is taken.
The legal claims
Access Bank, through its counsel Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), had requested an interim injunction restraining MTN from withdrawing or tampering with funds across all its accounts in Nigeria up to the amount of N180.95 billion.
The bank claimed this figure represents a long-standing debt owed by MTN to Multi-Links.
As part of the orders sought, the applicants also requested that all financial institutions in Nigeria be directed to disclose, under oath, the balances in MTN’s accounts within seven days.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1004/2025, essentially sought to lock down MTN’s funds pending the determination of the main suit.
However, Justice Aluko ruled that, while the plaintiffs presented a seemingly compelling case, MTN must be allowed to respond.
“Due to the peculiar nature of the case and the potential implications of the orders sought, especially in light of MTN’s correspondence marked ‘MTN 17,’ the defendant must be heard before any orders are granted,” the judge said, according to ThisDay Newspaper.
The court ordered MTN to appear and show cause within five days, with the case adjourned to June 23, 2025, for further proceedings.
Backstory
At the heart of the dispute is a fibre-sharing agreement between MTN and Multi-Links dating back over a decade, sources say.
The deal gave both parties “irrefutable rights of use” of each other’s fibre infrastructure for 10 years, expiring in 2024.
However, due to financial and operational setbacks, Multi-Links reportedly underutilised MTN’s infrastructure while MTN made significant use of Multi-Links’ network.
As Multi-Links spiralled into financial distress, the company went into receivership under the control of Diamond Bank. Before it folded, Multi-Links attempted to sell its fibre assets to MTN, but negotiations collapsed over pricing disagreements.
Years later, a company named Hoop Telecoms emerged, claiming to have acquired Multi-Links’ fibre infrastructure. However, Hoop reportedly disclaimed any responsibility for Multi-Links’ past liabilities. Despite this, the company billed MTN nearly N170 billion, retroactively charging for years prior to its supposed acquisition of the assets.
MTN flatly rejected the demand, estimating its actual obligation under the original agreement at just over N1 billion. The telecoms firm also took the matter to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), which reportedly found that Hoop Telecoms lacked a valid telecom licence and thus had no legal standing to make such claims.
The situation grew more complex after Access Bank acquired Diamond Bank in 2019, thereby assuming control of Multi-Links’ receivership. According to sources familiar with the case, Access Bank aligned itself with Hoop Telecoms’ claims and pushed for a legal settlement, which MTN resisted.
One insider told Nairametrics that several vested interests, including political actors, saw the claim as an opportunity to pressure MTN into a payout.
“There was talk that pushing MTN to pay could benefit everyone involved,” the source said. “But MTN stood its ground and sought legal protection.”
Caught in this web of legal and commercial ambiguity, MTN sought a court’s protection. But to the company’s surprise, Access Bank approached a court seeking a Mareva injunction, a legal order to freeze MTN’s accounts across Nigerian banks to the tune of N180.95 billion. Such orders are typically issued when a plaintiff fears the defendant may dissipate assets to frustrate judgment enforcement.
Insiders suggest that Access Bank may not have been fully briefed on the intricate history and legal background of the Multi-Links-MTN arrangement and might now be reconsidering its position.
According to one source, MTN and Access Bank have since opened lines of communication to explore an amicable resolution of the matter.
What’s next?
The judge’s refusal to grant the Mareva injunction offers MTN some short-term relief, but the legal battle is far from over.
The company now has until June 23 to respond formally and argue why the court should not freeze its accounts.
MTN declined to comment when contacted, stating that the case is subjudice. Access Bank has yet to respond to Nairametrics’ enquiry as of press time.
While the final outcome remains to be seen, the case raises deeper questions about the enforcement of legacy telecom agreements, the legal risks around receivership claims, and the influence of non-commercial interests in high-stakes disputes.
MTN Legal Battles
This isn’t the first time MTN Nigeria has found itself in the crosshairs of legal and regulatory disputes.
In May 2025, the telecom giant sued over 20 Nigerian banks to recover approximately N6 billion in unpaid interconnect fees from SleekChip Technologies, following a favourable Federal High Court judgment confirming the debt
Shortly after, MTN’s CEO and key executives were slated for arraignment by the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over allegations of obstructing the agency’s investigation, sparked by their reported failure to comply with a lawful summons.
Earlier in 2023, MTN also faced scrutiny from Nigerian tax authorities over alleged underpayment of duties and levies tied to digital and international calls.
MTN has since resolved some of these issues.
