Technext defends $4.2m Plaude investigation, rejects allegations of defamation

Technology news platform Technext has defended its investigative report into a disputed $4.2 million transaction involving Plaude Technologies Limited and Zacuten Technologies Limited, insisting that the story was produced through a rigorous editorial and verification process.

The publication issued the clarification after Plaude Technologies and its representatives mounted what Technext described as a media and legal campaign challenging the report.

In an editorial published on its platform, Technext said it stood by the substance of the investigation and rejected allegations that the report was intended to defame Plaude, its executives or any other individual.

The publication said its response was necessary to explain how the investigation was conducted and address concerns raised following the story.

Disputed transaction at the centre of controversy

The controversy stems from a report published by Technext concerning two currency-swap transactions between Plaude and Zacuten in March 2026.

According to documents reviewed by Technext, Zacuten transferred more than ₦11.3 billion in connection with transactions valued at more than $8 million.

The report alleged that only a portion of the dollar equivalent was subsequently delivered, leaving an outstanding balance of approximately $4.23 million.

Technext reported that the dispute subsequently involved Nigerian banks, the Federal High Court, the Nigeria Police Special Fraud Unit and other security agencies. The publication also reported that a complaint was made to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Centre in the United States.

Plaude’s position on some of the allegations differs from the account presented in the investigation.

Technext says documents were independently verified

In its response, Technext said its reporter, Omoleye Omoruyi, independently examined documents connected to the transaction before publication.

The publication said these included bank statements, corporate registration records, police-related documents and court materials.

Technext maintained that the investigation was not based solely on information supplied by one party to the dispute.

It also said that where it was unable to independently verify a claim or document, the report clearly stated that limitation rather than presenting the information as established fact.

The publication added that it retained documents and correspondence relating to the investigation and would make them available to a court if required.

Right of reply

Technext also highlighted efforts made to obtain responses from Plaude and individuals associated with the company.

According to the publication, its reporter contacted Plaude’s director, Olatomiwa Idowu, Chief Technology Officer Dayo Osikoya and Chief Commercial Officer Onyeka Akumah.

The publication said Osikoya initially indicated that he was willing to respond but later referred further enquiries to the company’s lawyers.

Technext said it subsequently received a cease-and-desist letter from Plaude’s lawyers.

According to the publication, the lawyers disputed aspects of the report and demanded that Technext refrain from publishing what they described as unsubstantiated reports concerning their client and its officers.

Technext said it disagreed with that characterisation and maintained that the report was supported by evidence gathered during its investigation.

Publication rejects defamation claims

Technext said it found no basis for the claim that its report was defamatory.

The publication argued that its story presented information it had been able to verify and distinguished between confirmed information and claims that it could not independently establish.

It also pointed to information relating to court orders, account restrictions and law-enforcement activity that it said was already in the public domain.

The publication questioned whether the existence of those official actions could reasonably be attributed to the media report itself.

Technext therefore rejected accusations of unprofessional conduct and insisted that the investigation was undertaken in the public interest.

Investigation raises broader questions

Beyond the dispute between the companies, Technext said the investigation was intended to examine broader issues around accountability and financial practices within Nigeria’s technology ecosystem.

The original investigation reported that Nigerian authorities had taken steps affecting dozens of bank accounts associated with Idowu, Plaude and related entities.

It also reported that an arrest warrant had been issued against Idowu and that international law-enforcement channels had subsequently become involved.

These developments, however, remain part of a wider dispute, and the publication’s allegations should not be interpreted as a determination of criminal liability.

Plaude dispute highlights importance of right of reply

The controversy has also highlighted the challenges faced by technology companies and media organisations when reporting on complex financial disputes.

For news organisations, investigations involving large financial transactions require careful verification, documentation and opportunities for affected parties to respond.

For companies facing allegations, legal notices and public statements can become important tools for challenging disputed claims and presenting their own account of events.

Technext said it remained open to updating its investigation if it receives substantive responses or additional evidence from the parties involved.

Technext pledges continued scrutiny of tech industry

In defending its report, the publication said its broader objective was to promote accountability within Nigeria’s technology sector.

It argued that the country’s technology industry has become an increasingly important contributor to the economy and therefore requires strong standards of transparency and corporate responsibility.

Technext said its reporting on the Plaude-Zacuten dispute was not motivated by an intention to damage any individual or company, but by the need to provide deeper context to a matter that had already entered the public domain.

The publication concluded that it remained confident in the integrity of the editorial process behind the investigation and would continue to report on issues affecting Nigeria’s technology ecosystem.