EXTRA: The CEO Who Built the Deal, Lost the Shares, and Chose to Speak

When Azeez Amida took to LinkedIn recently, he was not announcing a new role or celebrating a milestone. He was doing something far less common in Nigerian executive circles: telling the truth about what happens after the title is gone.

Sixteen months after his removal as Chief Executive Officer of Pan African Towers (PAT), Amida wrote with unusual candour about the financial pressure of unresolved severance, the identity crisis that follows the loss of a top leadership position, and the quiet isolation that sets in when organisations move on while individuals are left to quietly rebuild.

His post has since circulated widely, striking a chord among professionals who recognise the experience but rarely see it named so plainly.

Azeez Amida

At the centre of his account is an unresolved legal dispute with the private equity investors who acquired PAT, a case that is still working its way through the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, and which illustrates, in concrete terms, the corporate realities he is navigating in the background.

The Deal that Came Undone

The legal backdrop is significant. Amida was appointed CEO of PAT in 2022, inheriting a telecom infrastructure company burdened with roughly N38 billion in debt and N7 billion in overdue payables.

Within a year, he had grown revenue from N10 billion to N15 billion and lifted EBITDA from N4 billion to N6.5 billion, while renewing long-term contracts with major operators and cutting liabilities.

When existing shareholders decided to sell, it was Amida who proposed a management-led buyout to preserve Nigerian ownership, and who introduced Development Partners International (DPI) and Verod Capital Management as the financiers.

Together, they structured and completed the acquisition of PAT through an investment vehicle, PAT Holding Limited. A term sheet, his legal team contends, clearly detailed his 5% equity participation as part of the agreed structure.

Following the acquisition, several meetings were held to finalise the equity allocation. The shares were never transferred. In November 2024, Amida was removed as CEO. Demands for his equity entitlement were subsequently rejected by the investors, and the matter is now before the courts as Suit No. FHC/L/MISC/608/2025.

He is asking the court to compel the defendants to transfer his 5% stake or pay its monetary equivalent, along with damages for breach of contract.

What the Post Revealed

It is against that backdrop that his recent LinkedIn reflection gains its full weight. He described the period since his exit not as a gap between jobs, but as a sustained test of character and identity.

Losing a senior leadership role, he observed, is rarely just a career transition. He said “When professional titles become deeply tied to self-worth, the loss of that structure can bring emotional strain, financial uncertainty and a form of isolation that few people outside the experience fully understand.”

He noted how quickly institutions move on, while individuals are left to adjust quietly, reset expectations and rediscover themselves outside the position they once held.

His lessons from the rebuilding period were offered plainly: prioritise emotional recovery before reacting or retaliating; be transparent with family about financial realities; reset lifestyle expectations to match new circumstances; avoid distractions and unrealistic opportunities during vulnerable periods; maintain routines that support mental wellb-eing; and separate personal survival from ongoing disputes.

He further argued in is observation that society tends to attach relevance and respect to positions rather than to character, and that perceptions can shift with startling speed once the title disappears.

Yet his reflection was notably absent of bitterness as he wrote; “Before any title or organisation became part of your story, you already existed — and if you created value once, you still possess the ability to do it again.”

The Larger Question

Amida’s situation points to issues that extend well beyond one executive’s dispute with two private equity firms. It raises questions about how management buyout agreements are structured and enforced in Nigeria, and how executives are protected when deals do not honour their original terms.

It also surfaces a conversation that Nigeria’s corporate culture has long been reluctant to have openly what becomes of senior executives after the office, the designation and the support structures disappear, and whether the country’s business environment is equipped to take that question seriously.

The court case continues. But in choosing to speak candidly while it does, Amida has already done something that most executives in his position do not: he has made the private cost of corporate disputes a matter of public record.