A fresh twist has emerged in 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 $30 million management buyout dispute.
The allegation is 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.
According to the court filings, Amida argued that the latest suit should be viewed within the context of several pending disputes involving the company’s shareholders, including Development Partners International (DPI), Verod Capital Growth Fund III LP and African Development Partners International LLP.
The defence stated that Amida had already commenced separate legal proceedings against the investors over the management buyout transaction, seeking damages exceeding $30 million, while also pursuing claims against Pan African Towers arising from a Mutual Separation Agreement executed after his departure from the company.
He alleged that instead of filing substantive responses to those actions, Pan African Towers initiated fresh proceedings at the Federal High Court over expenditure approvals and procurement decisions made during his tenure as chief executive.
Amida maintained that the action was retaliatory and intended to exert pressure on him in relation to the earlier disputes.
The defence further explained that he had deliberately distanced himself from final expenditure approvals during his time as CEO because of disagreements over procurement practices and governance issues involving the board and shareholders.
According to the filings, following the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO), financial approval responsibilities were structured to ensure the CFO retained final approval authority, while the CEO’s role was limited to endorsing requests that had already undergone departmental reviews.
The defence argued that many of the transactions now being challenged were processed through that governance framework, with approvals passing through the Finance and Human Resources departments before payment.
It added that the CFO, who remains with the company and has since been promoted, exercised the final approval authority over the disputed expenditures.
Amida also contended that the transactions cited in the lawsuit were not unilateral decisions but formed part of the company’s established governance and approval procedures involving multiple departments, executive management and, where necessary, the board.
According to the defence, documentary evidence, including internal emails, approval workflows and payment records, would be presented during the trial to support those claims.
The filings further stated that hospitality expenses, investor engagement costs and related business expenditures challenged in the suit were incurred in the ordinary course of business, known to directors and shareholders, reimbursed through established procedures and reflected in the company’s audited financial statements.
Amida also argued that the allegations only surfaced after his exit from the company despite extensive internal reviews conducted before both parties executed a Mutual Separation Agreement in November 2024.
He maintained that the agreement required any allegations of misappropriation unrelated to released assets to be investigated, supported by credible evidence and communicated to him within six months, with an opportunity to respond before legal proceedings could commence.
In a separate application, Amida challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the dispute arose 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 remains pending before the National Industrial Court and that the Federal High Court proceedings amount to an abuse of court process.
The defence indicated that it would rely on a range of documentary evidence during the trial, including audited financial statements, board communications, internal approval emails, banking records, employment documents, shareholder communications and the Mutual Separation Agreement.
The Federal High Court is yet to rule on the substantive claims or the preliminary jurisdictional objections.
While Pan African Towers’ allegations remain before the court, Amida has denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the action forms part of a broader pattern of litigation connected to the acquisition of the company.
The court is expected to determine the merits of the claims after hearing both parties.
