Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Connect with us

General News

Lekoil Expresses Commitment to the Interest of its Shareholders

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Lekoil Limited (“LEKOIL”) has requested its shareholders to disregard the recent statement issued by Lekoil Nigeria and contact it if they have any queries about its operations.

In a statement titled ‘Litigation Summary and Response to Lekoil Nigeria announcement’ released, LEKOIL, the oil and gas exploration and production company with a focus on Nigeria and West Africa, described Lekoil Nigeria’s suits against it in Nigeria, the United Kingdom, New Jersey, and the Cayman Islands as obstructionist.

LEKOIL reiterated that it would not be intimidated by the actions of Lekoil Nigeria and its Chief Executive Officer, Mr Lekan Akinyanmi, adding that their action has the “strategic objective of blocking the Company’s legitimate activities and thereby reducing shareholder value.”

Anthony Hawkins, the Company’s Interim Executive Chairman, explained: “The litigations brought by Mr. Akinyanmi (funded by Lekoil Nigeria), along with Mr. Akinyanmi’s refusal to repay his CEO loan, make clear that Mr. Akinyanmi, supported by Lekoil Nigeria, is determined to try to frustrate the proper operations of the Company as approved by the majority of its shareholders.

“These legal claims have been instigated and pursued despite the fact that Lekoil Nigeria’s offer to purchase shares in the Company was not accepted by the vast majority of the Company’s shareholders; the Savannah Energy Transaction was supported by the Company’s major institutional shareholders, representing approximately 42% of the Company’s then current issued share capital; the entry into the Option Agreement with Savannah Energy was supported by 82% of shareholders at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on April 7 2022 (the Option Agreement being an integral part of the Savannah Transaction); and the issuance of additional shares in the Company was supported by 70% of shareholders at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on April 7 2022.”

Hawkins added that the Company has taken professional advice in the Cayman Islands and Nigeria and will continue to act in the best interests of all shareholders and not be intimidated by the actions of Mr. Akinyanmi and Lekoil Nigeria.

Akinyanmi, a former investment banker based in the United States, founded Lekoil and incorporated it in December 2010 with a holding structure. Lekoil Nigeria emerged as its principal subsidiary before others.

LEKOIL stated that the Company is a party to the following legal proceedings:

  • A claim by Mr Akinyanmi, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging breach of contract in the termination of his employment contract, as further set out in the RNS by the Company dated 24 September 2021.

The Company is challenging the jurisdiction of the New Jersey court to hear the claim.  Following this judgment, the Company will pursue the recovery of the CEO loan in the appropriate jurisdiction.

  • A claim by Mr Akinyanmi, in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, seeking a declaration (amongst others) that the “Share Allotment Resolutions” passed at the Company’s AGM on 21 December 2021 were ultra vires and void. This would have the effect of challenging the issuance of shares in the Company pursuant to various convertible facility agreements and the contractor shares scheme.

Ancillary to this claim was an ex-parte injunction that, as announced on 11 March 2022, was discharged by the Grand Court.  The Company notes that, following the discharge of the ex-parte injunction, Mr. Akinyanmi has not taken any further active steps in these proceedings but has instead presented a winding up petition, as described immediately below.

The Company also notes that, as part of the proceedings, it was made aware that the Board of Lekoil Nigeria had resolved to “continue to provide financial support to the CEO [Mr. Akinyanmi], and to pay the legal fees incurred in his ongoing legal proceedings in jurisdictions including Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, and United States.”

  • A contributory’s petition against the Company filed by Mr. Akinyanmi in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands seeking the winding up of the Company on “just and equitable” grounds, as notified by the Company on 7 April 2022.

In essence, Mr. Akinyanmi is seeking to have official liquidators appointed to wind up the Company or, alternatively, the entitlement to purchase the shares of all other registered shareholders of the Company at a value to be determined by the Grand Court.

  • An ex-parte injunction granted by the Nigerian Federal High Court on 4 April 2022 upon the application of Lekoil Nigeria and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Plaintiff’s) against the Company and Savannah Energy Investments Limited (“Savannah”), seeking to restrain: (i) the transfer of interests in the Plaintiffs; (ii) altering the beneficial and/or equity rights of the Company in the Plaintiffs; and (iii) altering (or taking steps to alter) the Company’s ownership, equity, share capital structure, rights or interest in the assets of the Plaintiffs (the “Nigerian Injunction”). The Nigerian Injunction has subsequently been supplemented by an application for a mandatory injunction in respect of the resolutions passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 7 April 2022.

 


Kindly share this post

Dear Reader, Your support matters. But we believe that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. That is why, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and finance and how they affect lives. Our incisive and analytical view of how technology news affects the daily life help individuals and organizations make up their minds. Quality journalism costs money. Today, we're asking that you support us to do more. Kindly support our effort to deliver technology and finance journalism to everyone in the world. Donate as little as N1,000. Bank transfers can be made to: UBA Plc 1017156876 Communication Week Media Ltd

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

General News

African Parliamentarians Seek Answers from Telcos on Quality of Service

Published

on

Kindly share this post

African legislators across the continent are increasingly demanding answers from mobile network operators for chronic poor service. Parliamentarians in Cameroon, South Africa and Zambia are demanding answers on data pricing, network connectivity needs in rural regions, contributions to job creation, data security and privacy, and adherence to universal service obligations.

Zambia is the latest country to question telcos over quality of service, and National Assembly speaker Nelly Mutti has ordered minister of technology and science Felix Mutati to deliver a ministerial statement on the Airtel network’s repeat outages and the steps being taken to resolve them.

Lawmakers have expressed concerns about the impact of inconsistent connectivity, particularly in rural areas where mobile communication is important for emergencies and essential services.

This come after telecoms regulator, Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) read the riot act to Airtel, after its most recent outage last week.

This was not the first time the telco had experienced service interruption, which prompted ZICTA to threaten the telco with a fine.

Meanwhile, the speaker of parliament declared that the nation has to be informed about the causes for the network provider’s bad service and the steps being taken to address the issue.

Mutti said: “This matter is affecting everyone. We need to know why the services are poor and what is being done to ensure service providers comply with stipulated guidelines.”

The move by the Zambian parliament comes a few days after South African parliament also summoned mobile network operators to respond to a range of concerns that lawmakers felt impacted consumers.

The following issues were considered by parliamentarians: network connectivity standards in rural areas, contributions to job creation, transformation, and economic inclusion and empowerment for blacks in general, women, youth, and people with disabilities, data security and privacy, adherence to universal service obligations, and spectrum conditions for universal connectivity.

 


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

General News

TD Africa, HP Strengthen Partnership to Advance Africa’s Tech Ecosystem

Published

on

Kindly share this post

TD Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa’s foremost technology distributor, took a bold step toward strengthening almost three decades of collaboration by hosting a high-level strategic meeting with HP Inc. at an exclusive gathering in Ikoyi, Lagos.

The meeting brought together top executives from both organisations to reaffirm their commitment to advancing digital transformation and deepening technology penetration across Nigeria and Africa.

Speaking at the meeting, Dr. Leo Stan Ekeh, Chairman of Zinox Group (parent company of TD Africa), traced the long-standing partnership between HP and TD Africa and emphasised the need for a more intentional synergy going forward.

“The relationship between TD Africa and HP goes beyond business; it’s a shared vision to use technology as the catalyst for a smarter, more prosperous Nigeria. Technology is the new oil, and together, we must build the infrastructure to power a 21st-century Africa,” said Dr. Ekeh.

Also, Mrs. Chioma Chimere, Coordinating Managing Director of TD Africa, reaffirmed the company’s commitment to digital inclusion and local empowerment. “At TD Africa, we are passionate about pushing technology to every part of the country and the continent. Our vision is to see an Africa where every individual, business, and institution is IT-ready and globally competitive,” she stated.

On behalf of HP, Kingsley Osuala, Distribution Business Manager, Central Africa, expressed appreciation for the enduring relationship with TD Africa and stressed the importance of local tech adoption.

“We are grateful to TD Africa for staying true to their mission of empowering Africa through technology. As the digital age accelerates, Nigerians must stay ahead by embracing innovation and high-performance tech solutions. That is how we stay globally relevant,” Osuala remarked.

The meeting concluded with renewed resolve from both parties to explore deeper collaboration and build on their shared legacy, one that prioritizes access, innovation, and the digital empowerment of Africa.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

General News

Court Orders Lawyer to Produce “Bail-Jumping” Client in MTN Cyber Fraud Case

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Justice Ambrose Allagoa of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered Mr Nnamdi Kalu, a legal practitioner, to appear before the court on July 9, 2025, to provide explanations regarding the whereabouts of Richard Ironbar Edemadem, his client,  who is accused of cyber-related fraud and has allegedly jumped bail.

Court Orders Lawyer to Produce “Bail-Jumping” Client in MTN Cyber Fraud Case

The judge issued the directive during the ongoing trial of Edemadem and four others, namely: Samuel Okpapi, Nelson Ojovbo, Bamigbade Olushola, and ISD Technology Limited, who are standing trial on charges of tampering with the critical mobile telecommunications infrastructure of MTN Nigeria and illegally profiting from unsolicited messages sent to subscribers.

The prosecution, led by Mr Nnemeka Omewa of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), informed the court that Edemadem, the first defendant, had jumped bail and ceased communication with both his counsel and the court.

He further revealed that Mr Kalu, who represented the defendant at the early stage of the trial, had stopped appearing in court and was unreachable.

During the trial proceedings, Justice Alagoa queried the continued absence of the first defendant, especially as his name had come up repeatedly during the testimony of the EFCC’s witness.

Upon receiving the explanation from the prosecutor, the judge expressed concern that no attempt had been made to bring the sureties to account, as required when a defendant absconds.

Responding to the judge’s query, Omewa said the prosecution had made efforts to trace the sureties and review the bail bond documents.

However, they discovered that no valid documentation about the sureties or their contact addresses could be found in the court file.

Disturbed by the absence of such critical records, Justice Alagoa directed the absentee defendant’s counsel, Mr Kalu, to appear before the court on the next adjourned date to provide clarity on his client’s disappearance and explain his failure to participate further in the trial.

In the meantime, the trial resumed with the testimony of Mr Olamide Sadiq, the fourth prosecution witness and an investigating officer with the EFCC.

Sadiq detailed how the defendants fraudulently manipulated MTN’s telecom systems to send unsolicited messages to thousands of unsuspecting subscribers.

According to his testimony, the defendants, who were employed as IT professionals for various telecom value-added service providers, compromised MTN’s Critical Mobile Telecommunications Network System between 2017 and 2018, adding that by exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities, they deployed mass unsolicited messages that led to unauthorised deductions from subscribers’ airtime balances.

Sadiq explained that these illegal deductions were routed into multiple accounts linked to the defendants and their affiliated entities, notably ISD Technology Limited.

The stolen proceeds, totalling N36,837,438.20, were subsequently distributed among the conspirators, he said.

Following the witness’s testimony, the court adjourned the matter to July 9, 2025, for the continuation of the trial and to enable Mr Kalu to appear and address the court on the issue of his absconding client.

The EFCC had filed a three-count charge against the defendants, detailing their alleged roles in the multimillion-naira fraud.

On count one of the charges, the defendants, Richard Ironbar Edemadem, Samuel Okpapi, Nelson Ojovbo, Bamigbade Olushola, ISD Technology Limited, and a fugitive known only as “Sola”, were accused of conspiring to tamper with a critical mobile telecommunications network system.

This, the EFCC said, is contrary to Sections 27(6)(b) and 10 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, and punishable under the same law.

The second charge stated that the defendants were charged with unauthorised tampering with MTN’s network infrastructure, an offence also contrary to Section 10 of the Cybercrimes Act, punishable under the same provision.

Counts three of the charges posited that the defendants allegedly took possession of N36,837,438.20, which they reasonably ought to have known were proceeds of an unlawful act, namely, stealing, contrary to Sections 15(2)(d) and (6) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended), and punishable under the same.

 

Source: Tribune

 


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending