Fresh court filings have added another layer to the legal battle surrounding the acquisition of Pan African Towers (PAT), with the company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Azeez Amida, alleging that a new lawsuit filed against him is retaliatory and intended 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 instituted by Pan African Towers.
In the court documents, Amida argues that the lawsuit should be viewed within the broader 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.
According to the defence, Amida had previously initiated legal proceedings against the investors over the management buyout transaction, seeking damages reportedly exceeding $30 million. He is also pursuing separate claims against Pan African Towers arising from the Mutual Separation Agreement executed following his departure from the company.
Amida contends that instead of filing substantive responses to those earlier actions, Pan African Towers commenced a separate suit at the Federal High Court focusing on expenditure approvals and procurement decisions made during his tenure as CEO. He alleges that the new proceedings are retaliatory and were instituted to exert pressure on him in relation to the existing disputes.
The defence also offers an explanation for why Amida says he deliberately distanced himself from final expenditure approvals while serving as Chief Executive Officer.
According to the filings, disagreements had emerged over procurement practices and certain governance issues involving members of the company’s board and shareholders. Following the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Amida says the company’s financial approval framework was deliberately structured to ensure the CFO retained ultimate approval authority, while the CEO’s role was limited to indicating support for requests that had already passed departmental review.
He argues that this arrangement was designed to minimise potential conflicts of interest and ensure that payments requiring bank mandates were authorised by the officer vested with final financial authority.
The defence further maintains that many of the transactions now being challenged were processed through that governance framework after passing through the Finance and Human Resources departments. According to the filings, the Chief Financial Officer exercised final approval authority over the expenditures and remains employed by Pan African Towers, having since been promoted. Amida argues that this fact is relevant to understanding how the approval process operated, although the court will ultimately determine its significance.
A central theme of the defence is that the transactions in question were not unilateral decisions by the former CEO but were processed through the company’s established corporate governance procedures.
The pleadings state that expenditure approvals passed through multiple levels of internal review involving Human Resources, Finance, Procurement, Executive Management and, where necessary, the Board of Directors. Amida also lists documentary evidence—including internal emails, approval workflows and payment records—that he intends to rely upon during trial.
The defence further argues that hospitality expenses, investor engagement costs and other business expenditures now cited in the lawsuit were incurred in the ordinary course of business, were known to directors and shareholders, reimbursed through established procedures, and ultimately reflected in the company’s audited financial statements. The company’s 2021 and 2024 audited accounts are among the documents listed for tender in support of those claims.
Amida also contends that the allegations surfaced only after his departure from the company, despite what he describes as extensive internal reviews conducted before both parties executed the Mutual Separation Agreement in November 2024.
According to the defence, that 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 legal proceedings could be initiated. He argues that those contractual procedures were not followed.
In a separate application, Amida has challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the dispute arises directly from his employment relationship and the Mutual Separation Agreement—issues he says fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
His motion further contends that a related matter between the parties is already pending before the National Industrial Court and argues that the Federal High Court proceedings therefore constitute an abuse of court process.
The defence also indicates that Amida intends to rely on a broad range of documentary evidence during trial, including the company’s audited financial statements, board communications, internal approval emails, WhatsApp exchanges involving shareholders, banking records, employment documents and the Mutual Separation Agreement.
The Federal High Court has yet to determine the merits of the substantive claims or the preliminary jurisdictional objections. Pan African Towers’ allegations remain before the court, while Amida has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that the lawsuit forms part of a broader pattern of litigation connected to the acquisition of the company.
The issues raised by both parties will ultimately be determined by the court.This version is written in a neutral, court-reporting style that adheres to professional legal journalism standards by clearly attributing allegations, avoiding defamatory assertions, and emphasizing that the matter remains before the court
, with the company's former Chief Executive Officer, Azeez Amida, alleging that a new lawsuit filed against him is retaliatory and intended to pressure him amid ongoing litigation over the company's management buyout.){kind=link}