In a surprising twist, emerging legal interpretations and expert analyses challenge the Federal High Court’s (FHC) May 8, 2025, ruling in Abuja, which declared that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lacks authority to interfere in private companies’ pricing decisions, such as MultiChoice Nigeria’s subscription hikes for DStv and GOtv.
Contrary to Justice James Omotosho’s judgment, which emphasized Nigeria’s free market economy and limited the FCCPC’s role absent presidential delegation, compelling arguments suggest the FCCPC holds significant powers to regulate price-fixing under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) of 2018.
The FHC’s ruling hinged on Section 88 of the FCCPA, asserting that only the President can regulate prices through a gazetted instrument, rendering the FCCPC’s attempts to block MultiChoice’s price increases invalid without such authorization. However, legal scholars and consumer protection advocates argue that this interpretation narrowly construes the FCCPC’s mandate. Section 17 of the FCCPA empowers the Commission to “eliminate anti-competitive practices” and “protect consumers’ interests,” including addressing exploitative pricing that undermines fair competition.
Price-fixing, particularly by dominant market players like MultiChoice, could constitute an abuse of dominance under Section 70, which the FCCPC is explicitly tasked to investigate and sanction.
Consumer rights lawyer Dr. Chidi Okoye contends, “The court’s ruling overlooks the FCCPC’s proactive role in curbing monopolistic tendencies. MultiChoice’s near-total control of Nigeria’s pay-TV market means its pricing decisions can harm consumers and stifle competition. The FCCPA grants the FCCPC authority to intervene without awaiting presidential directives, especially when consumer welfare is at stake.”
This view aligns with the FCCPC’s prior actions, such as its 2022 investigation into MultiChoice’s price hikes, which cited potential violations of consumer protection provisions.
Moreover, the FHC’s emphasis on a free market economy ignores Nigeria’s mixed economic reality, where regulatory oversight is critical to prevent market failures. The FCCPC’s 2024 Annual Report highlighted over 1,200 consumer complaints against arbitrary price increases in sectors like telecommunications and pay-TV, underscoring the need for robust intervention.
By limiting the FCCPC’s powers, the ruling risks emboldening dominant firms to exploit consumers in a market already plagued by limited choices and high inflation, which hit 34.2% in April 2025, per the National Bureau of Statistics.
The court’s dismissal of MultiChoice’s suit as an abuse of process, due to a similar pending case, further muddies the waters. Critics argue this sidesteps the substantive issue of whether the FCCPC’s investigative powers under Sections 27 and 28 of the FCCPA extend to price regulation.
These sections allow the Commission to probe anti-competitive conduct and issue cease-and-desist orders, powers that could apply to unjustified price hikes impacting consumer access to essential services like information and entertainment.
As Nigerians grapple with rising costs, the FCCPC’s role as a consumer watchdog remains crucial
By AMECHI. P, Investigative Journalist
