By Yisau Babatunde
This is the second part of a series investigating how Epic Adeyemi allegedly scammed members of the UDUS community and sold them substandard laptops. Read the first part here.
Adeyemi More Victim's Voices Under the Digest comments section / Yisau Babatunde
Recalled that DIGEST PRESS, UDUS, on March 26, 2026, published an investigative report titled “Epic Adeyemi: How Laptop Vendor Sold Substandard Laptops, Insists on No Refund Policy” which documented a wave of complaints and growing outcry from affected students.
After an overwhelming complaints in the comment section, this report digs deeper into the operation of Epic Adeyemi, uncovering what appears to be a troubling pattern in the circulation of substandard laptops allegedly sold by Epic Adeyemi within the Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto community—affecting not only students but lecturers as well.
The consequences are far beyond inconvenience, extending into professional and academic disruption. One such case is that of Ibrahim Abdulmajid, one-time Adeyemi's lecturer during his 100-level days as a Pharmacy student.
The lecturer built the transaction that happened on 26th of September, 2025 on familiarity and trust when he needed a reliable laptop for both professional and personal use. “I contacted him because I had a student–lecturer relationship with him.”
The agreement reached was the delivery of a Lenovo laptop at a rate of ₦140,000 which was subsequently delivered in Sokoto.
But the confidence that informed the purchase quickly gave way to concern and doubt because of the laptop's conditions.
“Upon use, the battery could not last for even five minutes,” the lecturer recalled.
What followed was a series of additional expenses that were neither anticipated nor disclosed at the point of sale. Mr Abdulmajid changed the battery, and even the charger because it was faulty too.
Colleagues had earlier questioned his decision to make a purchase outside his immediate environment, but he said his trust in the seller eroded those concerns.
Months later when he met the seller at Ajia Halimoh market in Sokoto and raised the issue, Adeyemi directed him to an engineer in the market.
For Abdulmajid, the experience led to a single conclusion of “Honestly, I regret doing business with him,” validating an earlier concern raised by his colleagues.
Receipt of the money paid to Idris Adeyemi by Ibrahim Abdulmajid | Yisau Babatunde
Suleiman Khadijah, a student, described that the transaction began through a trusted friend and gradually unraveled into a costly mistake she regretted forever.
She had first seen the laptop advertised on a friend’s WhatsApp status. Trusting that connection, she proceeded to make payment through the intermediary without initially knowing the true identity of the seller.
“I chose to have faith in her, not knowing he was the one selling it until the transaction had been completed.” she said.
Before the purchase, she had researched the specifications of the laptop she believed she was getting. But upon delivery, what she received told a different and frustrating story, saying “I got an old system with incomplete updates against my expectations.”
Among the issues she identified were persistent update notifications despite prior assurances, absence of a functional camera, and eventual keyboard failure. When she raised concerns, she said the explanations were dismissive. “He told me that was how the Windows operates.”
Despite the situation, she decided to keep the matter to herself because “I didn’t ask for a refund or compensation, I just wanted the system to work properly.”
Khadijah later sought help elsewhere. The cost of that decision added another layer to her loss where she spent about ₦40,000 fixing something she didn’t spoil.
According to the technician who handled the repair, the laptop appeared to be an older system that had not been in use for a long time, with deteriorated internal components including the keyboard battery. Khadijah now relies on an external keyboard as a temporary solution whenever she is using her personal computer.
“I thought I was just unlucky, until I started seeing similar stories everywhere.” she lamented bitterly.
Adeyemi's more victims voice out in DIGEST PRESS comment section| Yisau Babatunde
𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀
This reporter reviewed and documented multiple accounts with recurring similarities ranging from early device failure to disputed transaction terms.
Across these accounts, a pattern emerges: transactions anchored on personal trust or intermediaries, devices delivered below expected specifications, faults emerging shortly after use, complaints met with dismissive responses or referrals, additional financial burden shifted to buyers. And in some cases, changing prices after agreement.
Speaking with Abdulrahman Olamilekan, a dealer in buying and selling of Laptops and other gadgets, asserted that Nigeria’s “UK-used” laptop market operates with minimal standardised quality control.
Many devices are refurbished or assembled from older components, making performance inconsistent and lifespan uncertain.
“UK phones are still found in good condition, their parts are not assembled from different sources but the reverse is the case for laptops. This makes it difficult for buyers to know the real condition of the system they are buying,” Olamilekan said.
For students and lecturers, this creates a situation where the risk of failure is significantly higher, especially in informal transactions lacking enforceable guarantees.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗞𝗲eps 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴
Muhammad Hassan, a student who facilitated a purchase on behalf of a lecturer who later turned to Adeyemi's victim, described a transaction marked by shifting terms and growing tension between him and the vendor.
According to him, an agreement had initially been reached at the price of ₦120,000. However, due to unforeseen delays in payment, the seller reportedly revised the price. Adeyemi later said the system was no longer ₦120,000 but ₦130,000 because the promo had ended.
Even as partial payments were made, disagreements persisted over the actual balance. The unresolved disagreement took an U-turn when the seller advanced an unexpected demand for waybill (delivery) charges, a cost the buyer insisted that it was never part of the initial agreement.
“I told him that cannot happen,” Hassan recounted.
He also stated that there was confusion with the delivery process itself. While the seller allegedly claimed the laptop had already been dispatched, a contact at the motor park reportedly denied that any such movement had not taken place.
When the laptop eventually handed over to the original buyer after delivery on March 14, 2026, further complicated issues emerged. Hassan disclosed to this reporter that the system started overheating whenever it reached around 40 percent battery.
Upon complaints to the seller, the response received was described as dismissive and nonchallant, claiming “it was normal for laptops to behave that way.”
Hassan added that instead of a direct solution, he was advised to apply thermal paste. Unsatisfied, he requested for either a replacement or refund. While the seller reportedly agreed to a replacement, disagreements quickly resurfaced. This time around, it was over who would bear the cost of returning the faulty device.
At the same time, Hassan said he received pressure from the seller to complete payment of the outstanding balance despite the unresolved complaints.
Efforts to retrieve the laptop for return are still ongoing, as the original user had taken it home after he felt disappointed and scammed.
“For me, everything just became stressful,” Hassan concluded with a pause.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲work
Under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, consumers are entitled to goods that are of reasonable quality, fit for purpose, and correspond with their description.
The law further provides that where goods fail to meet these standards, buyers may be entitled to repair, replacement, or refund contrary to the idea of an absolute no-refund policy.
Data from the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also indicates that complaints relating to defective goods and misleading sales practices remain among the most common consumer issues, particularly in informal markets.
Despite the above legal provisions, investigation by this reporter established that Adeyemi's pattern of business points to the opposite direction.
Responding to the growing allegations, Idris Adeyemi denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that he does not deal in substandard products.
“I am not a vendor who sells substandard laptops, this is seriously affecting my business. I have been told that they intend to bring my business down through these claims.”
He described the situation as unfair, adding that the circulation of his name and images alongside negative claims could have long-term consequences.
“It is unfair to fly my name and pictures online with what I consider damaging narratives. I also have a future to protect.”
Lingering Lawsuit
Following the earlier publication by DIGEST PRESS, UDUS, Adeyemi Idris instituted a defamation legal action before Kwara Upper Area Court sitting in Ilorin. The suit was filed on March 31st against DIGEST lead character, and one other individual. Although the basis of the lawsuit focused on the independent posts published by the defendants across the social media handles, Adeyemi has since then been pressing Mutmainah to pressure DIGEST to bring down the publication. Earlier before the lawsuit, he had engaged DIGEST with several methods, including a threat of legal proceeding to bring down the publication.
While Adeyemi later disclosed to DIGEST PRESS that the matter had been dropped after due consultation, this statement appeared to be untrue due to absence of any evidence to support that. Adeyemi ignored several calls and messages to confirm the true status of the lawsuit.
Legal practitioner speaks
However, a Legal Practitioner, Kunle Agbede, described the lawsuit as reflective of a growing strategic lawsuits culture where legal threats are used to intimidate and discourage public complaints.
Mr Agbede said individuals who believe they have been subjected to wrongful legal action may explore claims of malicious prosecution, which arises when a person is sued without reasonable cause or with improper motives.
The lawyer said both the business and the customers have rights to protect their interests.
He, therefore, advised dissatisfied consumers to formally petition the FCCPC, which he said has the power to investigate complaints, prosecute offenders and impose sanctions where necessary.
Meanwhile, there’s a growing pattern of businesses using legal threats to silence people who made unflattering comments about their products.
One of the most prominent examples is the case between Chioma Okoli and Erisco Foods Limited. In September 2023, Mrs Okoli posted on Facebook that she found the company’s tomato mix “too sugary” and asked other consumers for their opinions. The post later triggered police action, cybercrime allegations, and a N5 billion defamation suit filed by the company.
Just last month, a bakery, Bon Bread, sued a Lagos-based businesswoman, Love Dooshima, and demanded N50 million in damages, after she made a video questioning the safety of the bread, which she claimed stayed fresh for over two months. She was invited and briefly detained by the police at Zone 7 in Abuja on 20 April.
In another incident last month, the Nigerian Police in Lagos invited Mary Udoka after she made a viral post criticising a nursery school English textbook for violent content. Although she hasn’t been sued, the author, Ebhohimen Ayengbe, petitioned the police, who invited her for questioning.