Court Rejects Access Bank’s Bid to Freeze MTN Nigeria’s Accounts Over N180.95bn Dispute

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has denied a request from Access Bank Plc to freeze the accounts of MTN Nigeria Communications Plc in connection with a contested N180.95 billion debt. The ruling marks a temporary win for MTN in a dispute that stems from a now-defunct infrastructure-sharing agreement with the collapsed Multi-Links Telecommunications Limited.

Justice Akintayo Aluko, presiding over the case, declined the ex parte application filed by Access Bank and three other companies in receivership—Multi-Links, Capcom Telecoms Limited, and Cyancom Limited. In his decision, Justice Aluko emphasized that MTN must be allowed to respond before the court can consider such a sweeping and punitive measure.

Court Refuses Mareva Injunction

Access Bank had sought a Mareva injunction—a legal instrument that freezes a defendant’s assets to prevent dissipation before a final judgment is reached. The bank argued that MTN owed Multi-Links nearly N181 billion and requested the court to restrict MTN’s access to its accounts across all Nigerian financial institutions. The plaintiffs also asked the court to compel banks to disclose, under oath, MTN’s account balances within seven days.

But in a notable rebuff, Justice Aluko ruled that while the case presented “peculiar” and “serious” issues, it was critical to ensure fairness by allowing MTN to be heard.

“Due to the peculiar nature of the case and the potential implications of the orders sought, especially in light of MTN’s correspondence marked ‘MTN 17,’ the defendant must be heard before any orders are granted,” the judge ruled.

The court subsequently directed MTN to show cause within five days and adjourned the matter until June 23, 2025, for further hearings.

The Origins of the Dispute

The controversy has its roots in a fibre-sharing agreement between MTN and Multi-Links, dating back more than a decade. The original deal, which granted both parties equal access to each other’s fibre infrastructure for ten years, officially expired in 2024.

While the agreement appeared mutually beneficial on paper, sources say Multi-Links significantly underutilized MTN’s network, while MTN leveraged Multi-Links’ infrastructure extensively. As Multi-Links slid into financial turmoil and went into receivership—then under the stewardship of Diamond Bank—attempts were made to sell its fibre assets to MTN. These efforts failed over disagreements on valuation.

Years later, a new player—Hoop Telecoms—emerged, claiming to have acquired the Multi-Links infrastructure. Hoop then invoiced MTN for nearly N170 billion, claiming backdated usage fees for services allegedly consumed long before its acquisition of the assets.

MTN Rejects the Debt Claim

MTN vehemently rejected Hoop’s demands, asserting that it owed just over N1 billion under the original infrastructure agreement. The telecom company further approached the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), which reportedly found that Hoop Telecoms lacked the necessary telecom licensing to make such claims in the first place.

With Hoop’s legitimacy in question, Access Bank’s involvement added a fresh twist. After acquiring Diamond Bank in 2019, Access Bank assumed control of Multi-Links’ receivership. It then aligned with Hoop’s position and attempted to force a settlement through litigation.

Legal Manoeuvres and Alleged Political Pressure

Industry insiders claim that Access Bank may not have fully appreciated the intricate legal and commercial history behind the Multi-Links-MTN transaction. Others suggest that political actors saw the N180.95 billion claim as a chance to pressure MTN into a payoff.

“There was talk that pushing MTN to pay could benefit everyone involved,” one source revealed. “But MTN stood its ground and sought legal protection.”

This resistance prompted Access Bank to pursue the Mareva injunction in a bid to force MTN’s hand. The court’s refusal to grant the freeze suggests the judge recognized the extraordinary nature of the request and the need for due process.

Meanwhile, sources say MTN and Access Bank have opened informal channels of communication to explore a potential resolution outside the courtroom.

Implications of the Ruling

Though the ruling offers MTN temporary breathing space, the underlying dispute remains unresolved. The next hearing on June 23 will be pivotal in determining whether the telecom giant’s assets can be legally restrained or if the court will dismiss Access Bank’s claim outright.

The case raises broader concerns about:

Enforcement of legacy telecom contracts
Validity of claims by third-party asset buyers like Hoop Telecoms
The use of receivership to revive old debts with questionable legal grounding

Legal analysts argue that without robust clarity on these fronts, future investments in Nigeria’s telecom and infrastructure sectors could face similar threats.

MTN’s Legal Woes Continue

This lawsuit adds to a string of legal challenges MTN Nigeria has recently faced. In May 2025, the company sued over 20 Nigerian banks to recover N6 billion in interconnect fees owed by SleekChip Technologies after receiving a favorable court ruling. Around the same time, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) moved to arraign MTN’s executives for allegedly obstructing an official probe.

Earlier in 2023, Nigerian tax authorities accused MTN of underpaying duties linked to digital and international communications—allegations the company later resolved.

Despite these setbacks, MTN has remained defiant in defending its position, seeking court protection and refusing what it considers coercive tactics.

What Lies Ahead?

As the legal battle unfolds, attention will shift to whether MTN can definitively disprove the debt claim or reach an amicable resolution with Access Bank. Given the stakes involved, the outcome could establish a significant precedent on the boundaries of receivership powers, the legitimacy of legacy claims, and the protections afforded to corporate defendants in Nigeria’s financial and telecom sectors.

For now, MTN’s operations continue unhindered—but the June 23 hearing may determine how long that remains the case.