Recent court filings have introduced a new dimension to the legal disputes surrounding the acquisition of Pan African Towers with former Chief Executive Officer Azeez Amida alleging that a fresh lawsuit filed against him is retaliatory and forms part of a broader effort to pressure him amid ongoing litigation over the company’s management buyout.
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 brought by Pan African Towers.
In the filings, Amida contends that the action should be viewed within the context of several pending disputes involving PAT’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 already commenced proceedings against the investors over the management buyout transaction, seeking damages reportedly in excess of $30 million, while separately pursuing claims against Pan African Towers arising from the Mutual Separation Agreement executed following his departure from the company.
The defence argues that rather than filing substantive responses to those proceedings, Pan African Towers commenced a separate Federal High Court action centred on expenditure approvals and procurement decisions made during Amida’s tenure as CEO. Amida alleges that the new proceedings are retaliatory in nature and were instituted to create pressure in connection with the earlier disputes.
The defence also provides an explanation for why Amida says he deliberately distanced himself from final expenditure approvals during his tenure.
According to the filings, disagreements had emerged over procurement practices and certain governance issues involving members of the company’s board and shareholders.
The defence states that, following the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer, responsibility for financial approvals was deliberately structured so that the CFO retained ultimate approval authority, while the CEO’s role was limited to indicating support for requests that had already passed departmental reviews.
Amida argues that this approach was intended to reduce potential conflicts of interest and ensure that payments requiring bank mandates were approved by the officer designated to exercise final financial authority.
The filings further contend that many of the transactions now challenged in the lawsuit were approved through that governance structure and processed by the Finance and Human Resources departments before payment.
The defence argues that the Chief Financial Officer exercised the final approval authority over those expenditures and remains with Pan African Towers.
According to the defence, the finance executive has continued with the company and has since been promoted, a fact Amida says is relevant to understanding how the approval framework operates. The court will ultimately determine the significance of those facts.
One of the central themes emerging from the defence is that many of the transactions now being challenged were not unilateral decisions of the former CEO but were processed through the company’s established governance framework.
According to the pleadings, expenditure approvals passed through multiple internal review stages involving Human Resources, Finance, Procurement, Executive Management and, where required, the Board.
The defence further states that the Chief Financial Officer retained final approval authority over payments, while the CEO’s role was largely limited to endorsing requests after departmental reviews had been completed.
Documentary evidence including internal emails, approval workflows and payment processes has been listed among the materials to be relied upon during trial.
The filings also contend that hospitality expenses, investor engagement costs and related business expenditures now cited in the lawsuit were openly incurred during the ordinary course of business, known to directors and shareholders, reimbursed through established procedures and ultimately reflected in the company’s audited financial statements.
The defence identifies the Plaintiff’s 2021 and 2024 audited accounts among the documents to be tendered in support of those assertions.
Amida further argues that the allegations surfaced only after his exit from the company despite extensive internal reviews conducted before the parties executed a Mutual Separation Agreement in November 2024.
According to his filings, the agreement required any allegations of misappropriation unrelated to released assets to be investigated and communicated within six months, supported by credible evidence and accompanied by an opportunity for him to respond before formal action could be commenced.
He contends that those contractual procedures were not followed.
Separately, Amida has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the dispute arises directly from his employment relationship and the Mutual Separation Agreement, matters he says fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
His motion further argues that a related National Industrial Court action between the parties remains pending and that the Federal High Court proceedings therefore amount to an abuse of court process.
The filings also reveal that Amida intends to rely on a broad range of documentary evidence during trial, including the company’s audited financial statements, board-related communications, internal approval emails, WhatsApp communications involving shareholders, banking records, employment documents and the Mutual Separation Agreement itself.
The Federal High Court is yet to determine the merits of the claims or the preliminary jurisdictional objections.
Pan African Towers’ allegations remain before the court, while Amida has denied wrongdoing and maintains that the action is part of a wider pattern of litigation connected to the acquisition of the company.
The issues raised by both parties will ultimately be resolved through judicial determination.
…Pan African Towers’ Allegations Against Amida
Recall that Pan African Towers’ had in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/917/2026 before the Federal High Court in Lagos, made allegations against Amida.
The company alleges that an internal audit, triggered by a whistleblower report received in July 2024, uncovered a pattern of unauthorized spending during Amida’s roughly eleven-month tenure as Managing Director/CEO, a tenure the company says ran from his December 2023 appointment to his November 2024 exit, though it notes he had informally held the role since January 2022.
Among the specific claims: that company funds were used to install solar power at Amida’s personal residence, that payroll included household staff who allegedly performed no work for the company, and that a payment recorded as sponsorship for a “Showtime community cup“, tied to the flag football brand Showtime Flag, in which Amida has a personal interest, was made without board authorization, along with over ₦4 million in VIP tickets to a related event.
The suit also alleges Amida failed to disclose that his exit from a previous employer was a negotiated separation rather than a resignation, which the company says would have affected its hiring decision.
Beyond a finding of breach of fiduciary duty, Pan African Towers is seeking a court order barring Amida from taking any directorship or management role at another company for ten years without its consent, an order for him to vacate office space it says his personal business occupied on its premises, and recovery of roughly ₦117.7 million in disputed payments, plus ₦200 million in general damages and ₦200 million in special damages for reputational harm, along with interest and costs.
The matter has been adjourned to October 8, 2026, for mention before Justice Aluko at the Federal High Court’s Lagos Judicial Division.
As with Amida’s defence, these remain unproven allegations and claims for relief, the court has not yet ruled on the merits.
