When Ibrahim Abdullahi joined EasySpend Technologies as a Senior Mobile Engineer, he thought he was joining a young company with a bold vision to innovate in digital payments. For nearly ten months, he wrote code, managed app integrations, and helped build EasySpend’s mobile products.
Like many developers at early-stage startups, his compensation was structured around a promise of future equity rather than a fixed monthly salary.
But when his engagement ended abruptly via WhatsApp, with no equity certificates, payments, or vesting statements to show for his time, Abdullahi began asking questions – questions that have since raised concerns about how some Nigerian startups handle developer contracts and compensation.
His story, backed by formal letters, WhatsApp messages, and a signed employment agreement, is now at the centre of a growing dispute between EasySpend and a group of former employees who say they were misled into working under unclear or unenforceable terms.
The company, whose website is not available, however, insists that every developer was engaged under a legally binding agreement, that all terms were clearly defined, and that Abdullahi’s termination followed due process based on documented non-performance.
Promises, Deadlines, and Deferrals
In a detailed email shared with this reporter, Abdullahi said he joined EasySpend in early 2025 under an “equity-based agreement,” which he understood to mean that developers would receive equity stakes instead of monthly salaries.
“Despite continuous work contributions,” he wrote, “no equity certificates, payments, or vesting statements were ever issued to me or many other contributors.”
According to him, the experience quickly turned into a cycle of “promises and deferrals.” Developers were told that “earnings will begin after milestone completion,” but each time a milestone was reached, “the goalpost was moved.” He claimed the company often cited “expenses exceeding revenue” as a reason for delaying equity recognition or compensation.
“When I raised these concerns, both privately and in team meetings, responses were usually vague or emotionally manipulative, suggesting that patience and loyalty would be rewarded later,” Abdullahi said. “No official documentation or transparency on financials was ever shared.”
He is not alone. Two other former employees who spoke anonymously to Technext shared similar experiences.
One said, “EasySpend’s founder is always looking for people to work for free, all in the name of equity. I worked for one month and two weeks before leaving after realising the guy wasn’t ready to pay.” Another claimed that after leaving, the company stopped responding to messages and later blocked him on WhatsApp. “The company hasn’t paid to date,” the former employee said.
The breaking point came in October 2025, when he received a WhatsApp message informing him of his “immediate termination for non-performance.” He says no warning or formal performance review was issued, and no termination letter was provided on official letterhead as required by his contract.
In a follow-up letter titled Unlawful Termination Notification, Abdullahi wrote:
“This mode of communication is not in compliance with the procedures outlined in my Senior Mobile Engineer Employment Agreement and general labour law standards. I have not received any formal written warning, performance evaluation below threshold, or documented instance of willful neglect.”
He requested a formal termination letter within seven days, citing the contract’s requirement for written notice, documented performance reviews, and arbitration in the event of disputes. That request, he said, has not been answered.
A Look at the EasySpend Contract
At the centre of the dispute is the Senior Mobile Engineer Employment Agreement signed by both parties. The document outlines the employee’s responsibilities, compensation, performance expectations, and termination clauses in an unusually detailed language.
Under Article 2.1, it states that the Senior Mobile Engineer “shall receive 5 per cent of the company’s revenue as long as employment is maintained,” with a monthly cap of ₦1,000,000. It also introduces several conditions that could suspend payments, including consecutive quarters of net loss.
While the contract references “salary” in certain penalty clauses, for instance, withholding “final salary, bonuses, or severance pay” for failure to complete an exit handover, or applying penalties “equivalent to one or three months’ salary” for cybersecurity or backup lapses, it never defines what that salary actually is or states any fixed monthly amount.
The only structured earning specified in the agreement is the 5 per cent revenue share, meaning that the developer’s compensation depended entirely on the company’s revenue performance and tenure.
Article 33, which was added in a revision, defines the equity vesting structure. It grants “10,000 shares in the company upon successful completion of one year of employment,” with vesting over four years at 25 per cent annually. It also adds a forfeiture clause: all unvested shares are forfeited if the employee resigns or is terminated for cause.
A labour expert consulted by this reporter notes that such agreements, while not illegal, can become problematic when companies use them as a substitute for wages without clear revenue, valuation, or vesting triggers.
“Sweat equity works when both sides have transparency,” one lawyer said. “Without defined valuation or deliverables, it becomes an uneven exchange — one side gives labour, the other gives promises.”
A Former Manager’s Account
Former EasySpend staff delivered a detailed account of how they were with the company for eight months. Their testimony describes an environment where promises of future compensation and equity did not translate into clear accounting or payouts and where questioning the books led to exclusion.
They said they joined after conversations with HR and that their compensation was explained to them as “5 per cent profit sharing and also 10,000 equity investing, like 10,000 shares.”
They described early efforts to bring structure and define roles. As they put it: “I spent the first two weeks redesigning how workflow should be, how a development environment should work, what is the duty of the developer, the developer engineers, and the testers.”
They say the organisational problems began to show when developers raised concerns about workload and lack of pay. “Some of the developers started reaching out to me that most of the things I’m asking them to do, right, that they are not really paid for this job,” they said.
According to them, when they pressed management about accounting and profit statements, the response was evasive. “He told me, yes, that EasySpend is a new company. And they are not yet able to start paying those guys,” they recalled.
They described a pattern of removing people who asked about finances from WhatsApp groups.
“I now noticed a trend, and the trend was the fact that anybody who is actively asking about the accounting thing after like a week, the person is removed,” they said. They also said contributors bore their own running costs. “They are using their laptop, their personal gadgets to work, they are using the electricity, they are using their own internet they paid for,” they told this reporter.
They questioned the practicality of the promised profit shares when many people were made co-founders. “Imagine that there were 30 people in that company, and he’s giving everybody five per cent profit, five per cent divided by 20. That can never work,” they said.
They added that features that generated rewards were systematically rejected in production. They said they may pursue defamation action: “If we are parting, which I don’t have issues with, you cannot be writing all of these lies against me,” they said.
This account supplements the documentary record of contracts and messages supplied to the reporter and aligns with other developers who described unclear accounting and withheld payouts.
EasySpend’s Response
EasySpend’s founder, Tobenna Okolo, maintains that Abdullahi’s case is not one of exploitation but of contract enforcement. In a written response to questions, Okolo said the company “takes transparency, contractual compliance, and fairness seriously,” and that Abdullahi was “lawfully terminated for breach of contract, not denied compensation or equity.”
“No contributor at EasySpend worked informally or without a written agreement,” he said. “In the case of Mr Abdullahi, his compensation and vesting terms were outlined in writing. He did not reach the one-year tenure required for vesting and was terminated for cause, which legally ended any entitlement to unvested shares.”
Okolo cited specific clauses in the employment agreement to support his position.
- •Article 2.1 (Compensation Structure): “The Senior Mobile Engineer shall receive 5% of the Company’s revenue as long as employment is maintained.”
- •Article 33.1 (Equity Grant & Vesting Period): “Equity shall be granted after one year of employment and vest over four years, at 25% per year.”
- •Article 33.3 (Forfeiture of Unvested Shares): “All unvested shares are forfeited if the employee resigns or is terminated for cause before completion of the vesting period.”
Okolo also rejected the claim that milestones kept shifting. “Milestones were never arbitrary,” he said. “They were tied to deliverables, timelines, tenure, and performance as expressly defined in contractual terms.”
He added that Abdullahi’s termination “stemmed from documented contractual breaches”, including failure to report and resolve critical issues within stipulated timelines, referencing Articles 9, 19, and 22. “We categorically reject any characterisation of manipulation,” he said. “The relationship with Abdullahi was governed by enforceable written obligations, not sentiment.”
On the allegation that the company used emotional appeals like “patience and loyalty will be rewarded later,” Okolo responded that “no contributor was ever asked to rely on loyalty in place of timelines.”
He described EasySpend’s model as “structured and documented, unlike exploitative ‘work now, hope later’ models.” While EasySpend maintains that its model is fair, several developers question whether such equity-for-labour arrangements are realistic for early-stage startups that have not yet achieved profitability or external investment.
Editor’s Note: All claims and responses in this story were verified through signed agreements, written correspondence, and statements provided by the parties involved. and its founder was contacted and given the opportunity to respond to all allegations, and their full position is reflected in this report.