The Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has the legal authority to regulate competition and protect consumers across all sectors, including telecommunications.
This was disclosed in a statement on its official X page by Ondaje ljagwu, Director, Corporate Affairs.
The court ruling strengthens FCCPC’s role in preventing anti-competitive practices and protecting consumers in Nigeria.
“The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) welcomes the ruling of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday, February 7, 2025, which affirms its statutory authority to regulate competition and consumer protection across all sectors, including telecommunications.
The judgment reinforces the FCCPC’s mandate as the primary authority responsible for preventing anti-competitive practices and protecting consumers in Nigeria, in line with Sections 17 and 18 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018,” the statement read.
Regulatory power dispute
In a case filed by Emeka Nnubia, a shareholder of MTN Nigeria and a legal practitioner, who sought to prevent the FCCPC from investigating the telecom giant. Nnubia argued that only the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) had the authority to regulate MTN and other telecom operators.
- However, Justice F.N. Ogazi ruled that the FCCPA 2018, being a more recent legislation, supersedes conflicting provisions in the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) 2003 that attempt to limit the FCCPC’s authority in the telecom sector.
- The ruling clarified that both FCCPC and NCC share jurisdiction over competition regulation, ensuring a balanced approach to fair competition and consumer protection.
“The ruling clarifies that Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) 2003, which grants the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) jurisdiction over competition matters within the telecom industry, must be read alongside Section 104 of the FCCPA 2018, which establishes FCCPC as the primary regulatory authority on competition and consumer protection across all sectors.
It held that the FCCPA, being the later legislation, supersedes conflicting provisions of the NCA 2003 to the extent that they seek to exclude FCCPC’s oversight in the telecommunications industry. The court’s decision affirms that the NCC does not have exclusive competition regulation authority in telecommunications.
Instead, both regulators now share concurrent jurisdiction, ensuring a coordinated approach to fair competition and consumer welfare in the telecom industry,” the statement read.
Investigation into MTN validated
The court also ruled that the FCCPC acted within its legal powers when it issued a Summons and Request to Produce to MTN Nigeria as part of its probe into potential anti-competitive practices.
“The ruling also confirms that FCCPC acted within its statutory powers in issuing a Summons to MTN Nigeria as part of its ongoing inquiry into potential anti-competitive practices. The Summons and Request to Produce was found to be lawful and within the scope of FCCPC’s investigative powers.”
It held that the FCCPC’s demand for information did not violate any data protection laws, including the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and the NCA 2003.
“the court held that the FCCPC’s request for information from MTN did not violate any data protection laws, including the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and the NCA 2003. No personal data was requested, and MTN’s obligation to disclose information in the public interest is a legitimate basis for compliance with FCCPC’s inquiry,” the court stated
More insights
Furthermore, the ruling emphasized that FCCPC does not need a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with sector regulators to enforce its statutory powers. Instead, it is the duty of sector regulators, including the NCC, to engage with FCCPC to define working arrangements.
In most legal cases, the losing party is usually required to pay certain costs, such as court fees and possibly some legal expenses of the winning party. However, in this case, the court decided not to impose any costs on the losing side. The reason for this decision is that the case addressed important legal questions about competition and consumer protection laws in Nigeria.
“On the issue of cost, the court acknowledged that the case raised important questions regarding the evolving landscape of competition and consumer protection law in Nigeria. While the court recognised that costs ordinarily follow events, it declined to award costs due to the public interest significance of the case,” the court stated.
