Court Summons Former MTN CEO over N1.8bn Suit

Davidson Iriekpen The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NIC) has ordered a former Chief Executive Officer of MTN Nigeria Communications Limited, Mr. Adrian Wood, to appear before it to testify in a suit filed by MTN’s former Network Group Operation Manager, Mr. Paul Odunewu.

The court also issued a subpoena in respect of Mr. Sifiso Dabengwa, an expatriate staff of MTN based in South Africa.

Odunewu is demanding N1.8 billion for alleged wrongful termination of his contract by MTN.

MTN Group Limited, MTN South Africa, MTN Nigeria and MTN International, Mauritius are the other defendants.

He accused the company of withholding his entitlements, including a share option worth over $13.14 million (about N2.1 billion).

A former Chief Technical Officer of MTN Nigeria, Mr. Ademola Eleso, while testifying at the trial, accused MTN of deceiving its workers.

He said MTN lured Odunewu, a renown telecoms engineer based abroad, to work for it in Nigeria, promising to make him a shareholder, only to end up withdrawing the offer.

Eleso said he hired Odunewu on MTN’s behalf. He told MTN’s Human Resources (HR) Department that for Odunewu to be happy to join the company and stay, he should be entitled to long-term incentive package. The witness said he also told Odunewu that his position would be key.

According to him, in the early days of MTN’s operations, there was a “strategic imperative” to employ high cadre candidates who would help the company grow in all facets.

“I was asked to help source for such people and make sure they came to MTN Nigeria and not Econet, now Airtel Nigeia, because of competition.

“In recognition of that it was understood that certain employees would necessarily have extra-ordinary remuneration package and stock option in order to make MTN an attractive proposition for the candidates of which CW1 (Odunewu) was one and that was my discussion with HR,” he said.

Eleso said Odunewu later complained to him that the share option was not specified in his appointment letter, adding that there were other staff whose letters did not contain it.

“The HR verbally communicated to the staff that when the company is well established, they would be eligible to the stock option,” he said.

Eleso insisted that Odunewu was entitled to the share option even though it was not all employees who were entitled to the scheme.

“MTN did not honour its part and MTN has been deceitful,” he said, adding that he encouraged Odunewu to join the company in the hope that MTN would honour its promise.

To show that some staff were deceived, Eleso said some of the workers who were promised the incentive along with Odunewu, were eventually given, while others were omitted.

He said other people who did not originally have the stock option later had theirs processed, but Odunewu was inexplicable ignored.

Eleso said the claimant “did contribute to the value of creation of the group and MTN extracted all the benefit from him and withheld the reward of the share option.”

Odunewu, in his claim, said he worked at MTN for over four years, and was responsible for the network’s outstanding achievements, which continues till date.

The former manager said he was responsible for the company’s pre-paid and post-paid revenue, subscription, voucher management and real-time charging.

He said: “I built the engine of the defendant’s business in Nigeria including people, process and technology.”

He said his superiors began an “onslaught” against him because they suddenly became “disturbed that a Nigerian could possess such incredible experience and exposure,”

Matters, he said, got to a head when he received a letter dated February 28, 2006 purportedly terminating his appointment; his access to the MTN network as a staff was revoked and he was ejected from his official quarters.

Odunewu claimed that the contract termination contradicted clauses of his agreement with MTN.

But MTN denied the claims, saying Odunewu’s contract was of limited duration and was due to terminate on December 12, 2003.

MTN said: “The letter of offer of employment with the second defendant expressly warned against any expectation of continued employment, nor was it ever at any time suggested to the claimant that he was to be made or had been made a permanent employee of the second defendant or any of the defendants.

“In the circumstances, claimant knew and expected, or ought to have known and expected that his employment was not a long-term or permanent appointment, and that the same was also liable to be determined within 60 days of the receipt of written notice.”