Alleged N2billion Revenue Loss: Question Trails MultiChoice Petition To EFCC Over Reference To Another Pay-TV Firm | Sahara Reporters

The petition, addressed to the Zonal Director of the EFCC in Ilorin, Kwara State, was signed by Umar Ibrahim Abdulaziz, Head, Anti-Piracy, MultiChoice Nigeria.

Fresh questions have emerged over a petition by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operator of DStv and GOtv, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against indigenous pay-TV operator, Moreplex TV Ltd, following an apparent reference to another pay-TV company in the document.

The development has raised concerns over the preparation of the petition, the evidence allegedly presented to the anti-graft agency and the basis upon which criminal enforcement action was subsequently pursued against Moreplex TV.

A two-page petition obtained by SaharaReporters showed that MultiChoice approached the EFCC over allegations bordering on economic sabotage, tax evasion, alleged criminal interception of signals and intellectual property fraud against Moreplex TV.

The petition, addressed to the Zonal Director of the EFCC in Ilorin, Kwara State, was signed by Umar Ibrahim Abdulaziz, Head, Anti-Piracy, MultiChoice Nigeria.

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,” the document accused Moreplex TV of allegedly accessing and re-broadcasting certain MultiChoice content and signals without authorisation.

MultiChoice further alleged that Moreplex’s activities had deprived it of revenue and affected its tax obligations, putting the alleged loss at more than N2billion.

The company also alleged that Moreplex obtained and retransmitted signals allegedly originating from a network connected to Eutelsat at 7 degrees.

However, a striking detail in the petition has now become a major point of concern.
In paragraph three on the first page of the document, MultiChoice reportedly stated: “we are providing the following links for detailed insights into Metro Digital’s operations.”

The reference to Metro Digital is significant because the petition is expressly directed against Moreplex TV Ltd.

The links listed in the petition, however, reportedly include Moreplex TV’s website, channels and dealer stores, further raising questions about whether the reference to Metro Digital was an apparent copy-and-paste error from an earlier document or petition involving another pay-TV operator.

The apparent discrepancy has prompted questions about whether the petition against Moreplex was prepared by adapting a previous petition involving Metro Digital and, if so, whether the factual allegations and supporting documents in the two matters were independently verified before the petition was submitted to the EFCC.

Questions have also been raised about the evidence allegedly presented to the EFCC to substantiate MultiChoice’s claim that Moreplex alone caused it to suffer more than N2 billion in revenue losses.

A source familiar with the controversy asked how MultiChoice arrived at the N2 billion figure and what documentary evidence was supplied to the EFCC to support the calculation.

“How did MultiChoice come up with the N2billion number ascribed solely to Moreplex TV since there is another company that has similar judgement and is also operating in a similar way?” the source asked.

The source also questioned the basis for the tax evasion allegation against Moreplex.
“How did MultiChoice come up with tax evasion petition against Moreplex TV? What proof did they present to EFCC before EFCC swung into action? If there is an established case of tax evasion, why is it not NRS that is investigating?” the source asked.

The controversy comes against the backdrop of a longstanding civil and commercial dispute between MultiChoice and Moreplex over access to television channels and alleged exclusivity.

Available reports indicate that Moreplex TV instituted proceedings at the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, challenging MultiChoice’s refusal to sublicense certain channels and alleging breaches of the Nigerian Broadcasting Code.
In the suit filed in 2023, but decided 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 provisions of the Broadcasting Code.

The court reportedly ordered MultiChoice to sublicense the channels and awarded N200 million in general damages, with 10 per cent post-judgment interest.

The history of the dispute has therefore raised concerns over whether the subsequent EFCC petition represents a separate criminal matter or whether criminal enforcement mechanisms are being deployed in the context of an existing commercial and regulatory disagreement.

Analysts said the dispute goes beyond a straightforward allegation of signal piracy, touching on competition, access to premium television content and the regulatory framework governing Nigeria’s pay-TV industry.

Moreplex has positioned itself as an indigenous alternative in Nigeria’s pay-TV market, offering DTH, DTT, VOD and other television services. Its platform lists a range of local and international channels, including several SuperSport-branded channels.

Moreplex’s management has also previously argued that Nigeria requires stronger competition in the pay-TV sector and called for regulatory intervention against what it described as monopolistic practices.

The company has described itself as a Nigerian/African-oriented pay-TV platform seeking to provide consumers with alternatives through flexible pricing and a combination of local and international programming.

The latest EFCC petition has consequently generated concerns about the use of criminal enforcement mechanisms in a dispute that has involved civil litigation, broadcasting regulation and commercial competition.

A source said the central issue was not whether allegations of copyright infringement, unlawful signal interception or tax offences should be investigated where credible evidence exists.

“Rather, the question being raised is whether a commercial dispute that has already been litigated before a competent court should subsequently become the subject of criminal proceedings in circumstances that could potentially affect the outcome of the underlying commercial battle,” the source said.

The source stressed that the allegations contained in MultiChoice’s petition remained allegations and had not, by themselves, established criminal liability against Moreplex or its officials.

“The document itself shows that MultiChoice approached the EFCC alleging criminal conduct by Moreplex. The allegations contained in the petition are allegations, not findings of guilt, and would have to be established through due process,” the source added.

Questions have also been raised about why the petition was submitted to the EFCC’s Ilorin office when MultiChoice’s head office is in Lagos and Moreplex also has an office in Lagos.

“Should a corporate organisation be allowed to use public institutions of law to gain advantage in a civil dispute?” the source asked.