By Kingsley Samuel
Fresh court filings have added a new twist to the legal disputes surrounding the acquisition of Pan African Towers (PAT), with the company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Azeez Amida, alleging that a lawsuit filed against him is retaliatory and intended to pressure him over an ongoing management buyout dispute valued at more than $30 million.
The allegations are contained in Amida’s Statement of Defence and Witness Statement filed before the Federal High Court in Lagos in response to claims instituted by Pan African Towers.
In the filings, Amida argued that the suit should be viewed alongside other pending disputes involving the company’s shareholders, including Development Partners International (DPI), Verod Capital Growth Fund III LP and African Development Partners International LLP.
According to the defence, Amida had earlier commenced separate proceedings against the investors over the management buyout transaction, seeking damages exceeding $30 million. He is also pursuing claims against Pan African Towers arising from the Mutual Separation Agreement signed following his exit from the company.
Amida alleged that instead of filing substantive responses to those actions, Pan African Towers instituted a fresh Federal High Court suit challenging expenditure approvals and procurement decisions made during his tenure as CEO, describing the action as an attempt to exert pressure in connection with the earlier disputes.
The defence further explained that disagreements over procurement practices and corporate governance informed his decision to distance himself from final expenditure approvals while in office.
According to the filings, following the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the company’s governance framework vested final financial approval authority in the CFO, while the CEO’s role was limited to endorsing requests that had already passed departmental reviews.
Amida maintained that the arrangement was designed to minimise conflicts of interest and ensure that payments requiring bank mandates received approval from the officer designated to exercise final financial authority.
He further argued that many of the transactions now being challenged were processed through the company’s established governance structure involving the Human Resources, Finance, Procurement and Executive Management departments, with board approval obtained where necessary.
The defence also stated that hospitality expenses, investor engagement costs and other business expenditures cited in the suit were incurred in the ordinary course of business, approved through established procedures and reflected in the company’s audited financial statements for 2021 and 2024, which Amida intends to rely on during trial.
Amida also contended that the allegations surfaced only after his departure from the company despite internal reviews conducted before both parties executed the Mutual Separation Agreement in November 2024.
According to him, the agreement required any allegation of misappropriation unrelated to released assets to be investigated, supported by credible evidence and communicated to him within six months, with an opportunity provided for him to respond before legal proceedings could commence.
Separately, the former CEO has challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the dispute stems from his employment relationship and the Mutual Separation Agreement, matters he said fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
He also argued that a related case between the parties is already pending before the National Industrial Court, making the Federal High Court proceedings an abuse of court process.
Court filings further showed that Amida plans to rely on a wide range of documentary evidence during the trial, including audited financial statements, board communications, internal approval emails, WhatsApp messages involving shareholders, banking records, employment documents and the Mutual Separation Agreement.
The Federal High Court has yet to rule on the merits of the claims or the preliminary jurisdictional objections.
While Pan African Towers’ allegations remain before the court, Amida has denied any wrongdoing, insisting that the suit forms part of a broader pattern of litigation connected to the acquisition of the company.
The issues raised by both parties are expected to be determined through the judicial process.
