MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operator of DStv and GOtv, has petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against indigenous pay-TV operator Moreplex TV Limited over alleged economic sabotage, tax evasion, unlawful interception of broadcast signals and intellectual-property fraud.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The allegations were contained in a two-page petition addressed to the Zonal Director of the EFCC in Ilorin, Kwara State, and signed by MultiChoice Nigeria’s Head of Anti-Piracy, Umar Ibrahim Abdulaziz.
The petition was titled, “Petition Against Moreplex TV Ltd for Economic Sabotage, Tax Evasion … Criminal Interception of Signals Contrary to Section 12 of the Cybercrimes Act, and Intellectual Property Fraud.”
MultiChoice alleged that Moreplex accessed and rebroadcast some of its television content and signals without authorisation, thereby depriving the company of revenue and affecting related tax obligations.
It estimated the alleged financial loss arising from Moreplex’s activities at more than ₦2 billion.
The company also accused Moreplex of obtaining and retransmitting signals allegedly originating from a network connected to Eutelsat at seven degrees.
The petition has escalated a protracted dispute between the two pay-TV operators over access to television channels, broadcasting rights, content sublicensing and alleged exclusivity in Nigeria’s subscription television market.
Moreplex had earlier instituted proceedings against MultiChoice before the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, challenging the latter’s refusal to sublicense certain television channels and alleging violations of the Nigerian Broadcasting Code.
The case, marked Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/129/2023, was reportedly determined on March 8, 2024, by Justice Phoebe M. Ayuba.
Justice Ayuba was reported to have declared 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 to Moreplex and awarded the indigenous operator ₦200 million in general damages, with post-judgment interest of 10 per cent.
MultiChoice subsequently challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal.
The existence of the civil and regulatory proceedings has raised questions among industry stakeholders about the introduction of criminal enforcement mechanisms into a dispute involving content access, broadcasting rights and commercial competition.
A source familiar with the dispute maintained that credible allegations of copyright infringement, unlawful signal interception or tax offences should be investigated but questioned whether criminal proceedings should be used in a commercial dispute already subjected to judicial determination.
“The key issue is not whether allegations of copyright infringement, unlawful signal interception or tax offences should be investigated where credible evidence exists,” the source said.
“Rather, the question 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 stressed that the allegations contained in MultiChoice’s petition remained unproven and would have to be established through investigation and due legal process.
“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.
Another source questioned the basis upon which MultiChoice calculated the alleged ₦2 billion revenue loss and whether the figure had been independently verified.
“The key question is how MultiChoice came up with the ₦2 billion figure ascribed solely to Moreplex TV, particularly since there is another company with a similar judgment that is also operating in a similar way,” the source said.
The source also queried the evidence supporting the allegation of tax evasion and why the matter was not referred primarily to the Nigeria Revenue Service if a tax liability had been established.
“How did MultiChoice come up with the tax-evasion petition against Moreplex TV? What proof did it present to the EFCC before the commission swung into action? If there is an established case of tax evasion, why is it not the Nigeria Revenue Service that is investigating?” the source asked.
Questions were also raised over MultiChoice’s decision to submit the petition at the EFCC office in Ilorin instead of Lagos, where MultiChoice is headquartered and Moreplex reportedly maintains an office.
The sources further called on law-enforcement and regulatory institutions to demonstrate that they were acting independently and not being used to give either party an advantage in the commercial dispute.
Moreplex has positioned itself as an indigenous alternative in Nigeria’s pay-TV market, providing direct-to-home, digital terrestrial television, video-on-demand and other television services.
The company has previously argued that greater competition in the industry would expand consumer choice and reduce what it described as monopolistic practices in access to premium content.
Industry stakeholders said the dispute could have implications beyond the two companies, particularly concerning competition policy, intellectual-property protection, broadcasting regulation and the ability of indigenous operators to compete against established broadcasters.
They maintained that law-enforcement authorities must distinguish between legitimate criminal allegations and civil or regulatory disputes while ensuring that intellectual-property rights and commercial interests are adequately protected.
MultiChoice’s petition does not establish that Moreplex committed the alleged offences. The accusations remain subject to investigation and determination through the applicable legal process.
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
