Access Bank, Three Telecoms Firms Seek To Freeze MTN Accounts Over Alleged N180bn Debt

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered MTN Nigeria Communications Plc to appear and show cause why an application seeking to freeze its accounts over an alleged debt of N180.95 billion should not be granted.

Justice Akintayo Aluko issued the directive while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Access Bank Plc and three other firms currently under receivership: Multi-links Telecommunications Limited, Capcom Telecoms Limited, and Cyancom Limited.

The plaintiffs, through their counsel Kunle Ogunba (SAN), are seeking interim reliefs including an order restraining MTN from withdrawing or tampering with funds in any of its Nigerian bank accounts up to the disputed amount. They also requested that MTN be barred from disposing of its assets—such as shares, funds, and properties—pending the hearing of the substantive motion.

In addition, the applicants asked the court to compel all financial institutions in Nigeria to disclose the balances in MTN’s accounts under oath within seven days of receiving the court’s order.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the claims, Justice Aluko declined to issue a blanket freeze order, instead directing MTN to appear before the court to defend itself.

“Following the strong case already made by the plaintiffs as revealed in their affidavit and documentary exhibits before the court, it is hereby ordered that the defendant/respondent shall appear in court at the next date to show cause why the orders sought should not be granted,” the judge ruled.

In a move to fast-track proceedings, Justice Aluko also shortened the timeline for MTN to file its response from seven to five days.

The judge emphasized that although the plaintiffs had presented a compelling case, including documents referencing “MTN 17,” the nature of the request and its potential impact required that the telecom giant be granted an opportunity to respond.

“Upon critical examination of the materials placed before the court—including affidavits and exhibits—it is clear the plaintiffs have made a compelling case which cannot be ignored. However, 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,” he added.

The matter was adjourned to June 23, 2025, for MTN to show cause.