The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled May 8 for judgment in the lawsuit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over regulatory actions against its recent DStv and GOtv subscription price increase.
Justice James Omotosho set the judgment date on Thursday after hearing final arguments from MultiChoice’s counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Moyosore Onigbanjo, and FCCPC’s legal representative, Professor J.E.O. Abugu (SAN).
FCCPC Challenges MultiChoice’s Price Hike
The legal dispute began when FCCPC summoned MultiChoice to justify its March 1 price review, citing concerns over frequent hikes, potential abuse of market dominance, and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry. The regulatory agency warned that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could result in sanctions.
However, MultiChoice challenged FCCPC’s authority in court, seeking an order to prevent any regulatory action against its pricing decisions. On March 12, Justice Omotosho issued an interim injunction restraining FCCPC from penalizing the company until the substantive case was resolved.
Legal Arguments: Authority vs. Consumer Protection
During Thursday’s proceedings, Onigbanjo argued that FCCPC lacked the legal authority to control MultiChoice’s pricing. He referenced past rulings, including a Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (FCCPT) decision stating that price regulation falls solely under the purview of the President of Nigeria, not the commission.
“FCCPC itself admitted in Paragraph 12 of its counter-affidavit that it does not fix prices. If you have no power to set prices, where do you derive the authority to suspend a price increase?” Onigbanjo questioned, accusing the commission of singling out MultiChoice while other industries, including telecommunications and airlines, have implemented price hikes without regulatory interference.
He further argued that the FCCPC’s attempt to halt MultiChoice’s pricing decision before an investigative hearing violated fair hearing principles.
FCCPC’s Defense: Consumer Rights Protection
In response, FCCPC’s counsel, Abugu, dismissed MultiChoice’s claims, asserting that the commission’s mandate under the FCCPC Act (2018) includes investigating exploitative pricing. He emphasized that MultiChoice was invited for discussions on February 27 regarding its planned price hike but failed to appear on the rescheduled March 6 date. Instead, the company proceeded with the price increase on March 1 and then sought court protection three days later.
“MultiChoice did not approach this court with clean hands. The commission does not fix prices, but it has the authority to regulate against exploitative pricing under Sections 80, 90, and 91 of the Act,” Abugu argued. He maintained that the commission’s intervention was aimed at protecting Nigerian consumers, who were subjected to price increases without proper justification.
Awaiting Verdict
With both parties presenting their final arguments, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case for judgment on May 8, a decision that could set a significant precedent for regulatory oversight in Nigeria’s pay-TV and broader business sectors.
The ruling will determine whether MultiChoice can continue adjusting its prices without FCCPC oversight or if the commission retains authority to intervene in pricing decisions impacting consumers.
Stay informed, Stay ahead with The Ameh News
Discover more from Ameh News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
