A former Chief Executive Officer of MTN Nigeria, Adrain Wood, has been summoned by the National Industrial Court, Lagos to testify in a N1.8 billion suit filed by the company’s former Network Group Operation Manager, Paul Odunewu.
Odunewu is claiming the amount for alleged wrongful termination of his contract.
A subpoena was also issued to Sifiso Dabengwa, an expatriate employee of MTN based in South Africa to appear before the court.
But MTN has objected to the subpoenas, saying no reasonable ground exists for their issuance.
“The subpoena seek to adduce oral evidence to vary the terms of an agreement that has been reduced into writing,” said the defendants, MTN Group, South Africa; MTN Nigeria, and MTN International, Mauritius.
Odunewu alleged that MTN is withholding his entitlements, including a share option worth over $13.14 million (N2.1 billion).
Former MTN Nigeria Chief Technical Officer, Ademola Eleso, testified in court that MTN deceived its workers.
He said MTN lured Odunewu, a renowned telecoms engineer based abroad, to work for it in Nigeria, promising to make him a shareholder, only to end up withdrawing the offer later.
According to Eleso, he hired Odunewu on MTN’s behalf and told MTN’s human resources (HR) department that for Odunewu to join the company, be happy and remain, he should be given a long-term package.
The witness said he equally told Odunewu that he would enjoy his position.
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 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.”
Eleso testified that 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.
The witness maintained that Odunewu was entitled to the share option, though it was not all employees who were entitled to it.
“MTN did not honour its part and MTN has been deceitful,” he said, adding that he encouraged Odunewu to join the company with the hope that the firm would honour its obligation to him.
He disclosed that some workers who were promised the incentive along with Odunewu were given, while some were left out, and others who did not originally have the stock option later had theirs processed, but Odunewu was inexplicably 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 said he worked at MTN for over four years, and was responsible for its outstanding achievements, which continue to date.
He averred that he was responsible for its pre-paid and post-paid revenue, subscription, voucher management, and real-time charging. “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.”
Odunewu recounted that matters got to a sour point when he received a letter dated February 28, 2006 purportedly terminating his appointment; his access to the MTN network was revoked, and he was ejected from his official quarters.
He contended that the contract termination contradicted clauses of his agreement with MTN.
MTN denied the allegations and claims, saying Odunewu’s contract was of limited duration and was due to terminate on December 12, 2003.
“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” MTN averred.
“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.”
