Ibrahim Abdullahi began his role at EasySpend Technologies as a Senior Mobile Engineer, attracted by the startup’s vision to innovate digital payment platforms. Over a period of nearly ten months, he played a key role in developing code, integrating systems, and enhancing the company’s mobile product suite.
Similar to many engineers in early-stage startups, his compensation was largely tied to future equity stakes rather than a fixed monthly salary.
Unexpectedly, his engagement was terminated via a WhatsApp message, with no delivery of equity certificates, payments, or vesting documentation. This sudden dismissal led Abdullahi to seek explanations and raised wider questions about how some Nigerian startups handle developer agreements and remuneration.
Backed by formal correspondence, WhatsApp chats, and a signed employment contract, Abdullahi’s dispute has become emblematic of broader allegations from former EasySpend employees who claim they were engaged under vague or unenforceable terms.
Despite these accusations, EasySpend-whose website is currently down-asserts that all developers were contracted under legitimate legal agreements with clear conditions, and that Abdullahi’s termination was justified due to documented underperformance.
Promises, Deadlines, and Repeated Delays
In a detailed email shared with this outlet, Abdullahi recounted joining EasySpend in early 2025 under what he understood to be an “equity-based agreement,” implying ownership shares would replace fixed monthly pay.
“Despite continuous efforts,” he explained, “neither equity certificates, payments, nor vesting statements were ever issued to me or many colleagues.“
He described a frustrating pattern of “repeated assurances followed by postponements.” Developers were told that “compensation would begin after hitting certain milestones,” but each time a milestone was reached, “the goalposts were moved.” The company often cited “operational expenses exceeding revenue” as reasons to delay equity issuance or payments.
“Whenever I raised these concerns privately or in team meetings, responses were vague or emotionally charged, urging patience and loyalty with promises of future rewards,” Abdullahi recalled. “No official financial reports or documentation were ever provided.“
He is not alone in this experience. Two other former staff members, speaking anonymously, shared similar grievances.
One said, “The founder always sought people willing to work without pay, under the pretense of equity. I left after six weeks when I realized payment was unlikely.” Another added that after leaving, the company cut off communication and blocked him on WhatsApp. “To this day, no payment has been made,” he lamented.
The conflict intensified in October 2025 when Abdullahi was informed via WhatsApp of his “immediate dismissal for non-performance.” He noted that no prior warnings, formal performance reviews, or official termination letters-required by his contract-were issued.
In a follow-up letter titled Unlawful Termination Notification, Abdullahi stated:
“This mode of dismissal breaches the procedures set out in my Senior Mobile Engineer Employment Agreement and labor laws. I have not received any formal warnings, performance evaluations indicating underperformance, or documented proof of willful neglect.”
He requested a formal termination notice within seven days, citing contract clauses mandating written notification, documented performance assessments, and arbitration for disputes. This demand remains unanswered.
Dissecting the EasySpend Employment Contract
The heart of the disagreement centers on the Senior Mobile Engineer Employment Agreement signed by both parties. This contract outlines the employee’s responsibilities, compensation structure, performance criteria, and termination terms with unusually detailed language.
Article 2.1 states that the Senior Mobile Engineer “shall be entitled to 5% of the company’s revenue during employment,” with a monthly cap of ₦1,000,000. It also specifies conditions under which payments may be withheld, such as consecutive quarters of financial losses.
While the contract references “salary” in penalty clauses-like withholding “final salary, bonuses, or severance pay” for incomplete exit procedures or imposing fines “equivalent to one or three months’ salary” for cybersecurity violations-it never explicitly defines a fixed salary amount.
The only explicitly defined earning method is the 5% revenue share, making the engineer’s income dependent on the company’s financial health and tenure.
Article 33, added via contract amendment, details the equity vesting schedule. It grants “10,000 shares after one year of employment,” vesting over four years at 25% per annum. It also includes a forfeiture clause stating that unvested shares are lost if the employee resigns or is terminated for cause.
A labor law expert consulted for this story noted that while such contracts are not illegal, they can become problematic if startups use them to replace salaries without transparent revenue reporting, clear valuation, or defined vesting terms.
“Sweat equity only works when both sides are transparent,” the expert said. “Without clear valuation or deliverables, it becomes a one-sided deal-one party provides labor, the other offers empty promises.“
Perspective from a Former EasySpend Manager
A former EasySpend staff member, who worked there for eight months, described a workplace where promises of future pay and equity failed to translate into clear accounting or actual payments, and where questions about finances led to exclusion.
They recalled joining after discussions with HR, with compensation described as “5% profit sharing plus 10,000 equity shares.”
Initially, they tried to bring structure: “I spent the first two weeks organizing workflows, defining the development environment, and clarifying roles for developers, engineers, and testers.“
However, organizational issues emerged when developers complained about unpaid work. “Several developers told me they were working without pay,” they revealed.
When they pressed management for financial transparency, the response was evasive. “The founder admitted EasySpend was a startup and not yet able to pay employees,” they recalled.
They noticed a pattern where anyone persistently asking about finances was removed from WhatsApp groups. “I observed that anyone who kept questioning accounting was removed within a week,” they said. Contributors also bore their own costs, using personal devices, electricity, and internet.
They questioned the sustainability of the profit-sharing model, especially with many individuals labeled as co-founders. “Imagine 30 people each getting 5% profit shares-that’s an impossible split,” they noted.
They also claimed that features that could generate rewards were routinely rejected during development and hinted at potential defamation issues: “If we part ways, false accusations against me are unacceptable.“
This account aligns with contracts and communications reviewed and echoes other developers’ reports of unclear financial practices and withheld payments.
EasySpend’s Official Response
Tobenna Okolo, founder of EasySpend, contends that Abdullahi’s case is about enforcing contractual obligations rather than exploitation. In a written statement, Okolo stressed the company’s dedication to “transparency, contract compliance, and fairness,” asserting that Abdullahi was “lawfully terminated for breach of contract, with no denial of compensation or equity,” as per agreed terms.
“No contributor at EasySpend worked without a formal written contract,” he affirmed. “In Abdullahi’s case, compensation and vesting terms were clearly outlined. He did not fulfill the one-year employment required for vesting and was dismissed for cause, nullifying any claim to unvested shares.“
Okolo cited specific contract provisions to support his position:
- Article 2.1 (Compensation Structure): “The Senior Mobile Engineer shall receive 5% of the Company’s revenue during employment.”
- Article 33.1 (Equity Grant & Vesting): “Equity is granted after one year and vests over four years at 25% annually.”
- Article 33.3 (Forfeiture Clause): “Unvested shares are forfeited if the employee resigns or is terminated for cause before vesting completion.”
He rejected allegations of moving milestones, stating, “Milestones were always tied to deliverables, timelines, tenure, and performance as clearly defined in the contract.“
Okolo added that Abdullahi’s termination was due to “documented contract breaches,” including failure to resolve critical issues within deadlines, referencing Articles 9, 19, and 22. “We deny any claims of manipulation,” he concluded. “The relationship was governed by enforceable written terms, not emotions.“
Regarding accusations that the company relied on emotional appeals like “patience and loyalty will be rewarded later,” Okolo stated, “No contributor was ever asked to trade loyalty for contractual timelines.“
He described EasySpend’s approach as “structured and documented, unlike exploitative ‘work now, hope later’ schemes.” While the company defends its model as fair, many developers remain doubtful about the practicality of equity-for-labor arrangements in startups without profitability or external investment.
Editor's Note: All claims and counterclaims in this article have been verified through signed contracts, written communications, and interviews with involved parties. The founder was contacted and given the opportunity to respond to all allegations, with their full perspective included in this report.