Why Access Bank is Demanding N180 Billion from MTN?

Access Bank is demanding nearly N181 billion from MTN Nigeria, over a long-standing infrastructure-sharing deal gone sour. But what’s behind this enormous claim, and why did a court recently refuse to freeze MTN’s bank accounts?

Let’s break down what’s really going on.

How it started

More than a decade ago, MTN and a now-defunct telecom company, Multi-Links Telecommunications, signed an agreement to share their fibre infrastructure. The deal was meant to be mutually beneficial, each company could use the other’s network, with access granted for ten years.

But things didn’t go according to plan. While MTN reportedly used Multi-Links’ network extensively, Multi-Links fell on hard times and underused MTN’s infrastructure. As Multi-Links collapsed financially, it went into receivership under Diamond Bank, which was later acquired by Access Bank in 2019.

This is where Access Bank steps in, with the belief that MTN owes money to Multi-Links (and by extension, Access Bank now managing the receivership).

A Billion-Naira tug of war

Access Bank, along with other companies linked to the Multi-Links case, approached the Federal High Court in Lagos asking for a Mareva injunction, a type of court order used to freeze a defendant’s assets. 

The bank wanted all of MTN’s accounts in Nigeria frozen to the tune of N180.95 billion, claiming that this amount reflected debts owed under the original fibre-sharing deal.

But the judge, Justice Akintayo Aluko, rejected the request—at least for now. He insisted that MTN deserves a chance to present its side of the story before such a drastic step is taken.

Why MTN is pushing back

MTN argues that its actual liability under the infrastructure deal is just over N1 billion, not the staggering N180 billion being claimed.

To complicate matters, a third company, Hoop Telecoms entered the picture, claiming it had acquired Multi-Links’ fibre infrastructure and began billing MTN retroactively for past usage. However, Hoop apparently doesn’t hold a valid telecom licence, making its legal standing questionable.

MTN rejected these claims outright and escalated the matter to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), which sided with MTN regarding Hoop’s lack of legitimacy.

What you should know

Sources suggest Access Bank might not have been fully briefed on the complex history of the MTN–Multi-Links agreement before filing suit. 

Some insiders even hinted that political players may be using the situation to pressure MTN into settling.

Regardless, Access Bank aligned with Hoop Telecoms and took the matter to court, asking for immediate action against MTN. So far, the court has refused to grant the freeze, giving MTN until June 23, 2025, to respond formally.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how legacy telecom agreements and receivership-related claims are handled in Nigeria’s legal system. 

It also shows how quickly corporate deals from the past can resurface with serious financial consequences.

While MTN enjoys a temporary reprieve, the legal battle is just heating up. Whether this ends in a courtroom or around a negotiation table remains to be seen.