The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lacks the legal authority to regulate or interfere with how companies set prices in Nigeria’s free market economy.
Justice James Omotosho delivered the verdict in a suit filed by Multichoice Nigeria, the operators of DStv and GOtv, which challenged the FCCPC’s attempts to intervene in its subscription pricing.
The company also sought protection from a previous lawsuit by lawyer Festus Onifade, which aimed to stop Multichoice from increasing its pay-TV prices.
Although the judge dismissed the suit as an abuse of court process—since a similar matter involving the same parties was already pending—he issued a clear and binding interpretation of the limits of the FCCPC’s powers.
Justice Omotosho held that the FCCPC, under current Nigerian law, cannot dictate or control pricing, citing Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA). He clarified that only the President of Nigeria has the constitutional authority to fix prices—and only under specific circumstances, such as when regulating essential goods or services.
He further ruled that any delegation of such presidential power to another body must be made through an official and gazetted instrument—something that does not currently exist for the FCCPC.
“The power to fix prices cannot be exercised by any other person or agency except the President,” the judge stated.
“If delegated, it must be via an instrument published in the official gazette. There is no such delegation before this court.”
Justice Omotosho also ruled that price controls, even if permissible, must apply to an entire industry and not single out a specific company unless there’s evidence of monopoly or market dominance.
He criticised the FCCPC’s action as discriminatory, noting that other operators in the same sector had not faced similar scrutiny.
“The FCCPC presented no proof that Multichoice holds a dominant position in the market, or that its price adjustments were excessive,” he said.
The court reinforced the principle of consumer choice in a free market, noting that customers are not compelled to subscribe to Multichoice services and can choose alternatives.
“This is a classic case of a willing seller and a willing buyer,” the judge noted. “The FCCPC’s role is to monitor for anti-competitive behaviour—not to police prices.”
Justice Omotosho also referenced an earlier ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT), which similarly upheld Multichoice’s right to set its own prices, describing the decision as “well-considered.”
In his concluding remarks, the judge stressed that any government intervention in pricing must adhere strictly to constitutional and legal processes, affirming that businesses operating in a free market economy are entitled to determine their own prices.
