Daud Olatunji
MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operators of DStv and GOtv, has petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over alleged revenue loss of more than ₦2bn arising from activities allegedly linked to indigenous pay-TV operator, Moreplex TV Limited.
The development has escalated the commercial and regulatory dispute between the two companies, with questions being raised over the circumstances surrounding the petition and the subsequent criminal proceedings reportedly initiated against Moreplex.
In a two-page petition addressed to the Zonal Director of the EFCC in Ilorin, Kwara State, and signed by MultiChoice’s Head of Anti-Piracy, Umar Ibrahim Abdulaziz, the company accused Moreplex of economic sabotage, tax evasion, unlawful interception of signals and intellectual property fraud.
The petition, titled “Petition Against Moreplex TV Ltd for Economic Sabotage, Tax Evasion … Criminal Interception of Signals Contrary to Section 12 of the Cyber Crimes Act, and Intellectual Property Fraud,” alleged that Moreplex accessed and retransmitted certain MultiChoice content and signals without authorisation.
MultiChoice further alleged that the activities had resulted in significant financial losses and tax implications, putting the estimated revenue loss at over ₦2bn.
The company also accused Moreplex of obtaining and retransmitting signals allegedly originating from a network connected to Eutelsat at 7 degrees.
However, the allegations contained in the petition remain claims and have not, by themselves, established criminal liability against Moreplex.
The latest development is particularly significant because it comes against the backdrop of a protracted legal battle between the two pay-TV operators over access to television channels and the competitive structure of Nigeria’s subscription television market.
Moreplex had earlier approached the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, challenging MultiChoice’s refusal to sublicense certain channels and alleging breaches of provisions of the Nigerian Broadcasting Code.
The suit was filed in 2023, while judgment was delivered on March 8, 2024.
Justice Phoebe M. Ayuba reportedly ruled in favour of Moreplex, declaring MultiChoice’s refusal to sublicense the requested channels unlawful and contrary to the applicable provisions of the Broadcasting Code.
The court also reportedly ordered MultiChoice to sublicense the channels and awarded Moreplex ₦200m in general damages, with 10 per cent post-judgment interest.
The existence of that litigation has added a fresh layer to the EFCC petition, with stakeholders questioning whether allegations arising from the same broader commercial dispute should subsequently be pursued through criminal enforcement mechanisms.
A source familiar with the matter said the central issue was not whether genuine cases of copyright infringement, unlawful signal interception or tax offences should be investigated.
Rather, the source questioned whether criminal proceedings should be used in circumstances where the parties were already engaged in a substantive commercial and regulatory dispute.
“The allegations contained in the petition are allegations, not findings of guilt, and would have to be established through due process,” the source said.
The EFCC petition has also triggered questions about how MultiChoice arrived at the alleged ₦2bn revenue loss attributed to Moreplex.
A stakeholder familiar with the dispute asked how the figure was calculated and whether the company’s assessment had been independently verified by the relevant authorities.
The source also questioned the basis of the tax-evasion allegation and why the matter was taken to the EFCC rather than being handled primarily by the relevant tax authorities if it involved established tax liabilities.
“Where is the evidence presented to the EFCC before it commenced action? If there is an established case of tax evasion, why is it not the Nigeria Revenue Service investigating?” the source asked.
The questions also extend to the choice of the EFCC office in Ilorin as the destination of the petition.
MultiChoice has its headquarters in Lagos, while Moreplex also has an office in Lagos.
The source therefore questioned why the petition was lodged at the EFCC office at 10 Oko Street, off Station Road, GRA, Ilorin, Kwara State.
“Was MultiChoice looking for a favourable and willing unit of the EFCC?” the source asked.
Further questions have been raised concerning the reported position of the EFCC in a separate human rights action connected with the dispute.
According to a source familiar with the matter, the commission had indicated that it would await the outcome of proceedings at the Court of Appeal concerning the content-rights dispute.
The source therefore questioned how the EFCC office in Ilorin could subsequently proceed before a lower court with criminal charges allegedly connected to the same content-rights controversy.
“How come the EFCC in Ilorin went to a lower court to file criminal charges against Moreplex regarding the same content rights?” the source asked.
The development has consequently fuelled concerns about the possible overlap between commercial litigation, broadcasting regulation, intellectual property enforcement and criminal proceedings.
Moreplex has positioned itself as an indigenous challenger in Nigeria’s pay-TV industry, offering direct-to-home, digital terrestrial television and video-on-demand services.
Its platform carries a mix of local and international channels, including SuperSport-branded channels.
The company has previously argued that the Nigerian pay-TV market requires stronger competition and has called for regulatory intervention against what it describes as anti-competitive or monopolistic practices.
For stakeholders, the unfolding dispute therefore extends beyond the two companies.
They say it could test how Nigeria balances the protection of intellectual property and broadcast content with the need to encourage competition and the growth of indigenous operators.
Analysts also believe the matter could have implications for consumers if disputes over access to premium channels continue to affect the ability of emerging operators to compete.
The controversy places several institutions and regulatory frameworks at the centre of public scrutiny, including the EFCC, broadcasting regulators, tax authorities and the courts.
Stakeholders say the key questions requiring clarification include how the alleged ₦2bn loss was calculated, what evidence was supplied to the EFCC, the basis of the tax-evasion allegation, and how the criminal proceedings relate to the unresolved commercial and regulatory issues between the companies.
They also argue that enforcement agencies must ensure that criminal law is applied independently and based on evidence, irrespective of the size or market position of the companies involved.
For Nigeria’s rapidly evolving pay-TV industry, the dispute could become a significant test of whether competition policy, broadcasting regulation, intellectual-property protection and criminal justice can operate independently without being used to distort legitimate commercial competition.
The allegations against Moreplex remain subject to investigation and judicial determination, while the parties’ competing claims will ultimately have to be resolved through due process.
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
