Odimmegwa Johnpeter/Abuja
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has welcomed the ruling of the Federal High Court Friday, February 7, 2025, in Lagos, which affirms the Commission’s statutory authority to regulate competition and consumer protection across all sectors of the economy, including telecommunications.
Reacting to the court ruling, the FCCPC said the judgment had reinforced its 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.
Emeka Nnubia, a shareholder of MTN and legal practitioner who sought to halt the FCCPC’s investigation into MTN Nigeria, had instituted the case heard before Justice F.N Ogazi at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
MTN, the argument and court ruling
Representing himself, Nubia had argued that the FCCPC’s inquiry could violate data protection laws and that regulatory authority over MTN resided with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) rather than the FCCPC.
Mr. Ondaje Ijagwu, Director of Corporate Affairs at FCCPC, Sunday, February 9, 2025, also averred the court 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 telecoms 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.”
The court further 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.
FCCPC, NCC, shares concurrent jurisdiction on the coordinated approach to fair competition, says Ijagwu
Underscoring the significance of the two Commissions in ensuring a comprehensive regulatory oversight in telecommunications, Ijagwu stated: “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 telecoms industry.
Section 105 of the FCCPA 2018 provides for collaboration between FCCPC and sector regulators, including the NCC.”
Ijagwu noted: “This approach aligns with global best practices, where consumer protection regulators collaborate with industry-specific regulators. “The ruling reaffirms that FCCPC’s jurisdiction remains paramount in competition and consumer protection matters, while also recognising the role of the NCC in regulating telecommunications operations.”
The court also ruled that entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with sector regulators is not a condition precedent for FCCPC’s enforcement of its statutory functions.
Instead, it is the obligation of sector regulators to engage with FCCPC to define working arrangements, not the other way round.
The ruling confirmed 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.”
Court: Commission’s request for information from MTN is not a violation of NCA 2003 and NDPA 2023
The Judge also declared the summons and requests to produce was found to be lawful and within the scope of FCCPC’s investigative powers.
Besides, 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 held.
The court commended the excellence of legal arguments presented in the matter and rejected any attempt to restrain a regulatory authority from exercising its statutory functions.
Ruling on costing
The court ruling further reaffirmed that preventing a regulator from discharging its duties violates the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
As regards 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.
Though the court recognised that costs ordinarily follow events, it declined to award costs due to the public interest significance of the case.
Mr. Emeka Nnubia appeared in person while Mr. Abimbola Ojenike with Ms. Oluwadamilola Omotosho appeared for the 2nd Defendant (Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission).
Mr. Chinonso Ekuma appeared for the 3rd Defendant (MTN Nigeria).
There was no legal representation for the 1st Defendant, the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, the FCCPC noted in the statement.
END
