Pan African Towers accused of using legal technicalities to stall ex-CEO’s unpaid exit deal

Fresh controversy has emerged around telecommunications infrastructure company Pan African Towers following allegations that the firm is using procedural legal tactics to delay resolution of a severance dispute involving its former chief executive officer, Azeez Amida.

The dispute, which is currently before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, centres on claims that obligations contained in a Mutual Separation Agreement signed after Amida’s exit from the company in November 2024 have remained unpaid nearly 18 months later.

The matter came before Honourable Justice Essien of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Division, on Tuesday, where counsel for Pan African Towers, Mr Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, with Chukwudi Nwudike and Amira Omodu, urged the Court to decline jurisdiction pursuant to Clause 13A and or refer the matter to arbitration vide 13B of the Mutual Separation Agreement.

Read also: Why Nigeria’s telecom recovery demands patience, not panic

Counsel representing Amida from Pinheiro LP, Bolu Agbaje Akadri, leading Emeka Ekweozor and Ukamaka Ali opposed the application, arguing that multiple attempts had previously been made to resolve the matter, including formal demands for performance under the agreement, before the suit was filed.

According to Amida’s legal team, formal demands for compliance with the agreement were made to the company without success, leaving litigation as the final option.

During proceedings, the court reportedly questioned why Pan African Towers had not filed a substantive defence to the main claims while pursuing a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

The judge was said to have described the approach as procedurally improper before deciding to proceed with hearing the application.

Amida’s camp insists that attempts were made in line with the Mutual Separation Agreement to settle the matter amicably but that no meaningful progress was achieved.

They further argued that the company’s reliance on arbitration at this stage appeared inconsistent with its previous conduct, noting that no serious steps were allegedly taken to commence arbitration proceedings before the matter was filed in court.

Read also: Paystack bets on AI-powered dashboard to transform business operations

“The substance of the dispute remains unanswered. The concern is whether procedural manoeuvres are being deployed to postpone accountability rather than resolve the issues in contention,” Amida’s stated.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to July 6, 2026, for ruling on the preliminary objection.

The dispute is already drawing attention within Nigeria’s legal and corporate governance community because of its wider implications for executive exit agreements and enforcement of contractual obligations.

Observers believe the outcome of the case could shape how Nigerian companies handle executive separation arrangements, arbitration clauses, and post-employment disputes in future corporate transactions.

The matter remains before the court.