MTN Data on Trial Abuja: What the prosecution asked and how the defence responded

Held at the Transcorp Hilton Abuja during the Nigerian Economic Summit, the forum divided participants into two sides.

On the Prosecution were customers, journalists, content creators, lawyers, influencers and consumer representatives presenting complaints and challenging MTN's explanations.

On the Defence were MTN Nigeria executives and technical specialists, who were required to explain how data is consumed, measured and charged and respond to specific complaints raised against the company.

Media personality Ebuka Obi-Uchendu moderated the proceedings, directing the exchanges between both sides and inviting questions from the wider audience.

MTN chief executive Karl Toriola opened the session by acknowledging customers' concerns about what he described as the "perception of disappearing data", saying the company had deliberately made itself available for interrogation.

The structure meant that the Abuja edition was not simply a series of presentations. Each explanation from the defence could be challenged by the prosecution, and several of the strongest moments came when customers tested MTN's general explanations against their own experiences.

The result was a hearing that provided clearer explanations about some forms of data consumption but also exposed questions the defence did not fully resolve, particularly around independent verification, unexplained deductions and compensation during network outages.

The case against MTN: Why data was on trial

The prosecution's case began with a familiar complaint: subscribers buy data and sometimes cannot explain how quickly it disappears.

Participants questioned whether consumers receive enough information about what they are buying, how deductions are calculated and what rights they have when they dispute their usage records.

The opening prosecution argument also raised the issue of redress: if a customer believes a data service has failed or that consumption cannot be properly explained, what remedy is available?

MTN's defence was that much of what customers describe as "disappearing data" can be explained by what their phones and applications are doing, sometimes without the user actively opening an application at that moment.

The exchanges that followed tested that defence.

Prosecution vs Defence: How the trial unfolded

ROUND ONE: 'MTN is stealing my data'

PROSECUTION

The central accusation placed before the defence was the complaint frequently seen on social media and heard from subscribers: "MTN is stealing my data."

Consumers said bundles sometimes appeared to finish far more quickly than expected, creating suspicion that deductions were happening without sufficient explanation.

DEFENCE

Mike Ndukwe, MTN Nigeria's General Manager of Network Performance and Quality Assurance, presented the first technical defence.

His argument was that users often underestimate how much data modern applications consume.

Using TikTok as an example, he said the initial request to access a video consumes relatively little data, while substantially more is consumed when the video itself is delivered.

According to MTN's presentation, a 15-second TikTok video could consume between about 2MB and 20MB depending on its resolution.

Ndukwe also pointed to WhatsApp groups, status videos, automatic downloads and cloud backups as examples of activities that can consume data even when a subscriber does not think of themselves as actively downloading content.

He told the audience:

"We're not stealing your data. However, we completely understand how it feels, especially right now when everything costs money."

His central defence was that consumption follows an action performed either by the customer or by the customer's device.

What the prosecution challenged

That explanation answered how data can be consumed.

It did not yet answer the prosecution's larger question: how does a customer prove what happened when their own experience does not match MTN's explanation?

That question became more important as the trial continued.

ROUND TWO: Does faster internet mean faster data depletion?

PROSECUTION

Consumers have frequently complained that data appears to finish faster on newer phones and faster networks.

The underlying question was whether moving from slower networks to 4G or 5G meant MTN was deducting data more rapidly.

DEFENCE

MTN argued that the network itself does not simply multiply the amount of data consumed.

Instead, faster networks allow applications to load more content, at higher quality, with less buffering.

Ndukwe used the analogy of travelling in a high-performance vehicle rather than a bicycle or tricycle: greater performance can come with greater consumption.

MTN said applications may automatically deliver higher-resolution content when a faster connection is available. Autoplay can also immediately begin loading the next video.

Later in the defence presentation, MTN's IT representative clarified that 3G, 4G or 5G primarily affect how quickly content can be delivered. Because content loads more smoothly and applications may increase quality, users can consume more within the same period.

WHAT THIS ESTABLISHED

The defence provided a plausible explanation for why subscribers may experience faster consumption on modern networks.

But it did not establish that network speed explains every disputed case.

ROUND THREE: What is happening on the phone when the user is not actively browsing?

PROSECUTION

Customers questioned how data could disappear when they believed they were barely using their phones.

DEFENCE

A device-focused presentation explained that smartphones increasingly remain connected even when users are not actively looking at them.

Applications can perform activities including:

• automatic app updates;
• cloud synchronisation;
• photo and video backups;
• push notifications;
• background application activity; and
• operating-system processes.

The defence also advised subscribers to restrict software updates and backups to Wi-Fi, reduce streaming quality, disable unwanted automatic downloads and set data limits where possible.

PROSECUTION'S POSITION

The explanation identified another possible source of consumption.

But customers later argued that telling them what might consume data still did not provide proof of what did consume their own bundles.

ROUND FOUR: How does MTN actually measure and charge data?

PROSECUTION

If a subscriber's phone shows one figure and MTN's records show another, which one should the consumer trust?

That question went to the heart of the trial because consumers wanted to know how the operator calculates what it deducts.

DEFENCE

MTN's IT representative explained that a device and a telecommunications network may not record data in exactly the same way.

The defence said a phone largely displays application-level activity, while the network measures traffic travelling across the network, including communication required for applications to connect with external servers.

The company also pointed to differences in measurement conventions.

One method treats 1MB as 1,000,000 bytes, while binary measurement uses 1,024-based units.

MTN said measurement differences, rounding, and the timing of sessions can contribute to discrepancies between what appears on a device and what appears on the network.

PROSECUTION'S IMPLICIT CHALLENGE

If the operator's measurement differs from the customer's device, subscribers need a transparent way to understand and challenge the difference.

That issue became central during cross-examination.

ROUND FIVE: MTN presents its evidence — the Data Monitor

DEFENCE

MTN then presented one of the strongest pieces of evidence in its case: an internal tool called Data Monitor.

The tool was demonstrated before the audience.

According to the demonstration, it could display:

• total data consumed during a selected period;
• when that consumption occurred;
• the device and network involved;
• applications associated with the traffic; and
• data-usage patterns over time.

In one sample, approximately 6.6GB of usage was shown, with activity associated with platforms including X, Instagram, TikTok, the App Store and WhatsApp.

MTN said similar usage information could also be viewed through the MyMTN app.

PROSECUTION

The existence of the tool raised another question:

If MTN can see this level of detail, how much of it can an ordinary subscriber obtain when challenging a deduction?

Later in the proceedings, participants went further, questioning whether a tool created and controlled by MTN could be considered sufficient independent proof that MTN's own deductions were correct.

That question was not fully resolved during the session.

ROUND SIX: “I bought 14.5GB. Where did it go?”

This was one of the clearest examples of the prosecution testing a general explanation against an individual complaint.

PROSECUTION

A customer told the panel that she bought 14.5GB of mobile data on a Thursday.

She said she remained at home through the weekend and used her home Wi-Fi rather than MTN mobile data.

When she tried to use mobile data at work on Monday, she said she was informed that she no longer had an active bundle.

Her question was simple:

Where did the 14.5GB go?

She insisted that saying applications consume data did not explain what happened in her specific case.

DEFENCE

MTN responded that if mobile data is genuinely switched off, a phone should not be using MTN mobile data during that period.

The defence then identified several possibilities.

Applications may have activities waiting in a queue while a device is offline.

For example, photographs or videos may be waiting to upload to Google Photos or iCloud. Messages, software updates and backups may also be waiting for connectivity.

Once mobile data is switched back on, those activities can resume immediately.

The defence also advised subscribers to check Wi-Fi Assist or equivalent automatic network-switching features, which can move a phone onto mobile data if the Wi-Fi connection becomes weak.

VERDICT ON THIS EXCHANGE

MTN provided possible explanations.

But the specific cause of the subscriber's missing 14.5GB was not established during the hearing.

That distinction is important.

The defence explained what could have happened; it did not demonstrate conclusively what happened in that individual case.

ROUND SEVEN: Why does the same activity seem to consume different amounts at different times?

PROSECUTION

Another participant asked why seemingly identical activities appeared to use different amounts of data at different times of day.

The example given was watching the same type of content during the night and during the day but observing different apparent consumption.

DEFENCE

MTN said several factors could affect usage, including background activities taking place at the same time.

But the panel did not provide a definitive explanation for the specific difference described.

The moderator said the issue still required further examination.

OUTCOME

Unresolved.

The session did not establish why identical activity would necessarily produce different reported consumption at different times.

ROUND EIGHT: Is data more expensive in Nigeria?

PROSECUTION

Participants questioned why mobile data could feel more expensive in Nigeria than in some countries abroad.

The challenge was not only the nominal price of a gigabyte but how long the purchased volume lasts relative to income and everyday usage.

DEFENCE

MTN disputed the idea that Nigeria has unusually expensive data when countries are compared on headline price per gigabyte.

The defence cited international comparisons presented at the event and argued that Nigeria was not among the most expensive markets.

MTN representatives also said telecommunications companies in Nigeria face high infrastructure costs, including electricity, diesel, imported technology and foreign-exchange exposure.

WHAT REMAINED CONTESTED

The defence largely addressed price per gigabyte.

Consumers were also talking about affordability — how much data costs relative to income and how quickly the purchased volume is consumed.

Those are related but different questions.

The international comparisons presented during the event should therefore be treated as MTN's evidence unless independently verified.

ROUND NINE: Why am I charged when a video fails to load?

PROSECUTION

A participant challenged the defence using its own fuel analogy.

If a subscriber attempts to watch a video but the network is weak and the video never plays successfully, why should their data still decrease?

The argument was that the customer did not receive the intended service.

DEFENCE

MTN said a failed download does not necessarily mean no data was transmitted.

If a file reaches 50 or 60 per cent before the connection fails, the transferred portion has already moved across the network.

That traffic can therefore count towards the customer's consumption.

The defence added that failure could result from different points in the chain, including the website or server being accessed or network conditions at the user's location.

OUTCOME

MTN established that partial transmission can consume data even where the final download fails.

The larger question of redress where failure is caused by poor network performance was not fully resolved.

ROUND TEN: If my bundle is valid for 30 days, why can it finish in five days?

PROSECUTION

Another subscriber questioned the meaning of a "30-day" data bundle.

If a customer purchases 20GB or 50GB described as valid for 30 days, why can it be exhausted after only a few days?

The participant compared the experience with other subscription services that remain active throughout the paid period.

DEFENCE

MTN said three different elements must be separated:

price, volume and validity period.

If a subscriber buys 20GB valid for 30 days, the customer has up to 30 days to use the 20GB.

The validity period does not guarantee that the volume itself will last for 30 days.

A heavy user can therefore exhaust the allowance before the expiry date.

MTN also explained that rollover depends on the particular bundle and its terms and conditions.

OUTCOME

This was one of the clearer questions answered during the trial.

The prosecution's confusion concerned the distinction between how much data was purchased and how long the customer is allowed to use whatever remains.

ROUND ELEVEN: Why are some customers given data offers that others cannot access?

PROSECUTION

One participant said repeated attempts to access offers through *121# produced a message saying no offer was available.

The customer wanted to know why some subscribers receive discounted or special packages that others do not.

DEFENCE

MTN said the offers are personalised.

Packages presented to one subscriber may differ from those presented to another because they are tailored to individual usage patterns.

The defence therefore confirmed that *121# offers are not necessarily identical across MTN's customer base.

ROUND TWELVE: What happens when the network itself fails?

PROSECUTION

Consumers raised another issue that shifted attention away from customer behaviour.

What happens when a subscriber has paid for data but cannot use it because the network is unavailable?

One participant described losing access for an extended period and later discovering that the bundle had expired.

Another asked more directly:

If the network is unavailable for two days, what compensation is available for the paid service the subscriber could not use?

DEFENCE

The recorded proceedings did not produce a clear compensation framework in response.

OUTCOME

The trial did not establish a general mechanism for compensating customers when network outages prevent them from using a time-limited data service.

ROUND THIRTEEN: Can MTN show every deduction?

PROSECUTION

A participant asked whether someone who went to bed with about 2GB and woke up with little or no data could receive a transaction-by-transaction breakdown showing exactly where the bundle went.

Another participant said the existing application had not worked satisfactorily for them.

Consumers also wanted a way to distinguish between:

• data consumed directly by applications;
• background device activity; and
• network-related traffic included in MTN's measurement.

DEFENCE

The defence had already demonstrated Data Monitor and said usage information could be viewed through the MyMTN application.

But the hearing did not establish that every subscriber could obtain a complete transaction-level record explaining every disputed deduction in the manner the prosecution requested.

OUTCOME

Partially answered.

MTN demonstrated that it holds detailed usage information, but the level of customer-facing detail and the dispute process remained unclear.

ROUND FOURTEEN: Who verifies MTN's evidence?

This became one of the most important questions of the entire hearing.

PROSECUTION

A participant challenged the independence of the evidence itself.

If a customer says MTN wrongly deducted data, and MTN responds by checking a system built and operated by MTN, who independently determines which side is correct?

The participant asked why subscribers did not have access to an independent system for verifying consumption.

DEFENCE

MTN's presentations showed how its systems monitor network traffic and how customers can access some usage information.

But the proceedings did not identify an independent subscriber-accessible system capable of separately validating disputed MTN deductions.

OUTCOME

Unresolved.

The defence demonstrated transparency tools, but the prosecution's question was about independent verification, not merely access to MTN's own records.

ROUND FIFTEEN: Are ordinary consumers receiving enough information?

PROSECUTION

Participants argued that many of the explanations being presented were too technical for ordinary subscribers.

A trader, student or small business owner may depend heavily on mobile data without understanding concepts such as network traffic, background synchronisation or measurement conventions.

The prosecution asked how this information would reach people outside technical and industry circles.

DEFENCE AND REGULATORY RESPONSE

Representatives acknowledged an information gap between operators and consumers.

The Nigerian Communications Commission representative at the event said consumer education and accessible information were important and pointed to existing engagement platforms including the Consumer Parliament.

MTN said Data on Trial itself formed part of its consumer-education effort.

The company also said it regularly provides information about data-saving settings and applications that can increase consumption.

OUTCOME

Both sides effectively agreed that a consumer-information gap exists.

The remaining question is whether ongoing education will make billing information sufficiently understandable for ordinary subscribers to challenge disputed usage effectively.

What the prosecution established

The prosecution did not prove during the forum that MTN was systematically removing data without corresponding usage.

But it did establish that customer dissatisfaction goes beyond a lack of understanding about TikTok, WhatsApp or background applications.

Consumers want:

• clearer evidence showing where disputed data went;
• access to sufficiently detailed usage records;
• a credible process for challenging discrepancies;
• clarity on compensation when the operator's network is unavailable;
• explanations that ordinary subscribers can understand; and
• an independent way of verifying contested deductions.

Those questions remained important even after MTN's technical presentations.

What the defence established

MTN successfully demonstrated several ways data can be consumed without a subscriber appreciating the scale of that consumption.

The defence showed that:

• high-resolution video consumes more data than lower-resolution content;
• autoplay can continue loading content;
• WhatsApp media and status videos can use substantial data;
• applications can update and synchronise in the background;
• cloud backups can resume when connectivity returns;
• phones may automatically switch from Wi-Fi to mobile data;
• a failed download can still consume whatever portion was successfully transferred;
• network records and device records can differ because they measure somewhat different activity; and
• a plan's validity period is not the same thing as a guarantee that its data volume will last for that period.

MTN also demonstrated that it has tools capable of showing more detailed usage patterns than a simple balance notification.

What the evidence did not establish

The Abuja trial did not prove that every complaint about unexplained data consumption is caused by user behaviour.

It did not determine the precise cause of every individual case raised during the hearing.

It did not establish an independent verification system for customers disputing MTN's records.

It did not set out a clear general compensation mechanism for customers unable to use their bundles because of network outages.

And it did not demonstrate that every subscriber can obtain the transaction-by-transaction level of evidence some participants requested.

These remain important distinctions between the defence's general explanation of how data can be consumed and proof of how a particular disputed bundle was consumed.

Key takeaways from MTN Data on Trial in Abuja

• Prosecution: Customers, journalists, creators and consumer representatives challenged MTN over rapid data depletion, billing transparency, failed downloads, outages and disputed deductions.
• Defence: MTN executives and technical specialists explained network measurement, streaming, background applications, automatic downloads, backups and device settings.
• Strongest defence evidence: MTN demonstrated Data Monitor, showing usage over time and applications associated with network traffic.
• Strongest prosecution challenge: Customers questioned whether MTN's own system could independently prove that MTN's deductions were correct.
• Clearly answered: Differences between data volume and validity, background consumption, partial downloads and personalised offers.
• Partly answered: Overnight deductions and the difference between device and network records.
• Still unresolved: Independent verification, transaction-level evidence for disputed deductions and compensation for network outages.

Data on Trial: At a glance

• EventMTN Nigeria Data on Trial
• DateOctober 26, 2026
• VenueTranscorp Hilton / Transcorp Centre, Abuja
• OrganiserMTN Nigeria
• FormatCourtroom-style public inquiry
• ModeratorEbuka Obi-Uchendu
• ProsecutionCustomers, consumer representatives, journalists, creators and other participants
• DefenceMTN Nigeria executives and technical specialists
• FocusMobile data consumption, measurement, billing transparency and consumer trust
• Key MTN participantsKarl Toriola, Mike Ndukwe, David Ogunsola and other MTN executives and specialists
• Technical evidenceMTN Data Monitor demonstration and MyMTN usage information
• Regulatory participationRepresentatives of the Nigerian Communications Commission and Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
• Key outcomeMTN explained several mechanisms behind data consumption, while demands for independent verification and clearer redress remained unresolved

The verdict: What was actually established?

There was no simple guilty-or-not-guilty conclusion from the Abuja proceedings.

MTN made a credible technical case that much unexpected consumption can originate from applications, device settings, high- quality streaming, automatic downloads, backups and other background processes.

Its Data Monitor demonstration also showed that the operator can trace patterns of traffic in considerably more detail than customers may see from a remaining-balance notification.

But the prosecution exposed the limits of that defence.

Explaining the many things that can consume data does not by itself establish what did consume a particular customer's disputed bundle.

For that, subscribers need records they can understand, access and challenge.

The most important question left after the trial therefore was not simply "Where is my data?"

It was:

"When MTN and a customer disagree about where the data went, who can independently establish the answer?"

The Abuja session did not resolve that question.

It also left open questions about outage compensation and the level of transaction detail customers should receive when challenging unexplained consumption.

Those issues will ultimately determine whether Data on Trial produces lasting improvements in consumer trust or remains primarily an exercise in public explanation.

The Daily Circular will continue to follow the issues raised during the trial and assess any subsequent commitments or consumer-protection measures against what subscribers can actually verify.

The Daily Circular covered MTN Nigeria's Data on Trial session in Abuja. This report is based on proceedings at the event, including presentations, questions from the prosecution and responses from the defence. Claims and figures presented by participants are attributed accordingly where they were not independently established during the proceedings.