₦airaland Forum

A Nigerian senator has raised serious concerns about the alleged use of fintech platforms, particularly Moniepoint, by fraudsters during a committee screening session in Abuja.

The lawmaker directed his question to moniepoint CEO Tosin Eniolorunda, recounting a personal experience in which he said cybercriminals exploited his phone and used a Moniepoint account to collect money from unsuspecting victims.

Speaking during the session, the senator narrated how he was deceived by a fraudster who called him and asked him to provide certain numbers.

“As somebody that is analogue, I was so gullible,” the senator said. “Somebody called me and told me to give him some numbers. I gave him the numbers and suddenly I could no longer access my WhatsApp platform.”
According to him, the situation only became clear after he informed his daughter, who quickly realized that his account had been hacked.

“She said, ‘Daddy, you have been hacked.’ I asked, ‘What is hacked?’ She said we should quickly act so it could be reversed,” he explained.

However, before any recovery steps could be taken, the hacker had already begun exploiting the compromised account.

The senator claimed that the fraudster used his phone number and identity to solicit money from several contacts, some of whom allegedly transferred funds to an account on the Moniepoint platform.

“Before the reversal, the man that hacked my telephone had already succeeded in collecting millions from people,” the senator said.

He further alleged that similar incidents reported by colleagues and other victims frequently involved accounts linked to fintech platforms such as Moniepoint and OPay rather than traditional commercial banks.

“From experience and from what other people have told us, such people normally use OPay and Moniepoint,” he said.

The lawmaker questioned why fraudsters appear to prefer fintech platforms over conventional banks, suggesting that accessibility and the absence of widespread physical branches could be contributing factors.

“My question is: what is the attraction for using Moniepoint and OPay rather than conventional banks? Is it because it is difficult to see you physically?” he asked.

He also called for stronger regulatory oversight of fintech companies to ensure victims of digital fraud have clear channels for lodging complaints.

“There is a need for proper regulation of the way these platforms operate so that when something happens, people know where to go physically to make their complaints,” he added.

Fintech platforms such as Moniepoint have grown rapidly in Nigeria in recent years, providing digital payment services, agency banking, and financial technology solutions to millions of users. However, the expansion of digital financial services has also increased concerns about cyber fraud, identity theft, and the misuse of payment platforms by criminal networks.

Industry experts have repeatedly stressed that fraudsters often exploit social engineering tactics, such as phone calls and phishing messages, to gain access to victims’ accounts, rather than vulnerabilities in the platforms themselves.

The comments made during the committee session have reignited discussions about the need for stronger cybersecurity awareness, improved user verification systems, and stricter regulatory frameworks to curb digital financial crimes in Nigeria.

Opay Digital Service Limited, one of the fintech mobile money firms operating in Nigeria, has been dragged before a Federal High Court in Lagos by one of its depositors over the alleged unlawful freezing of his account.
The applicant, Moses King, claimed that the action led to the death of his father.

King instituted the suit against Opay Digital Service Limited through a Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure pursuant to Section 46(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/178/2026, filed by his lawyer, Barrister Olalekan Ogunbunmi, the applicant is seeking several reliefs against the fintech company.

He is asking the court to declare that the freezing of his account, number 8087652738, from September 17, 2025 to December 9, 2025, without a court order or just cause, was illegal, wrongful, unconstitutional, and a violation of his fundamental rights.

King further argued that the restriction prevented him from accessing N500,000 meant for his father’s hospital bills, which he said resulted in his father’s death.
Among the reliefs sought are:

A declaration that the account restriction violated his constitutional rights.

A declaration that withholding his funds without lawful authority was illegal.

A declaration that the restriction directly contributed to his father’s death.

An order directing Opay to publish a public apology in two national newspapers.

Payment of N50 million as exemplary damages.

In a 23-paragraph affidavit supporting the application, King stated that he is a trader who has long operated the account for legitimate business transactions.

He said he discovered on September 17, 2025, that he could no longer carry out transactions on the account. After contacting customer service, he was informed that a Post No Debit (PND) restriction had been placed on the account.


According to him, the company allegedly failed to provide any court order authorising the restriction and only told him he needed a court order to regain access.

He added that repeated visits and inquiries yielded no explanation.

King said his lawyer later wrote to the company requesting either removal of the lien or provision of a court order. However, he claimed that the company admitted there was no court order and that the restriction was based on an internal bank report.

He stated that the funds in the account were specifically meant to pay his father’s hospital bills, but the restriction left him unable to access the money.

“That inability to access my personal savings account led to the death of my father because I could not pay his hospital bills,” he averred.

He also maintained that he has never engaged in fraudulent transactions and described himself as a law-abiding citizen.

The applicant further alleged that the restriction caused him severe hardship, forcing him at some point to rely on neighbours for food.

Opay Digital Service Limited is yet to file a response to the suit despite being served with the court processes.

Justice Daniel Osiagor has fixed March 2 for hearing of the case.

United Bank for Africa (UBA) has been accused of unlawfully withholding the property documents of a Nigerian businessman more than two decades after he fully repaid a N100,000 overdraft facility.

It was gathered that David Oloyede, a businessman based in Ibadan, obtained an overdraft facility from UBA in 1990. As collateral for the loan, he deposited the deed of his landed property with the bank.

However, despite settling the loan in full by 2001, UBA has allegedly refused to release the original title documents 25 years later.

David’s son, Bode Oloyede, said the bank has ignored repeated requests, visits, and formal letters demanding the return of the property deed.

“My father paid back the loan completely, but UBA has refused to release the title document he deposited as collateral,” Bode said.

Documents obtained , including a 2003 statement of account, show that deductions related to the overdraft had ceased, indicating the loan had been cleared.

A pre-action letter issued by David’s lawyers further confirmed that the overdraft facility expired on August 16, 1999, and that all outstanding indebtedness was fully liquidated on December 21, 2001.

Part of the letter read:
“All outstanding indebtedness was fully liquidated… leaving a credit balance after deduction of interest and administrative charges.”

Despite this, the Oloyede family said UBA has continued to hold on to the deed without explanation.

Bode disclosed that they had visited several UBA offices in Ibadan and written multiple letters to the bank’s head office, but received no response.

FIJ also confirmed that emails sent to UBA on January 12 and again on Friday received only automated replies, with no official response from the bank as of publication.

UBA is yet to publicly explain why it is still in possession of the property documents decades after the loan was reportedly settled.