The Federal High Court in Abuja has set May 8, 2025, as the date for delivering its judgment on the ongoing legal battle between MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
The case revolves around the regulatory authority’s opposition to the price increases imposed by MultiChoice on its DStv and GOtv subscription services. The decision to reserve judgment follows an extensive legal confrontation between the two parties, with both sides presenting arguments on whether the FCCPC has the power to interfere with pricing decisions made by private entities in a free-market economy.
Presiding over the case, Justice James Omotosho arrived at the judgment date after meticulously considering the arguments from the legal representatives of MultiChoice and the FCCPC. This legal dispute gained traction after MultiChoice implemented price adjustments for its television subscription packages, a move that was met with opposition from the FCCPC, which cited concerns over the impact of such changes on Nigerian consumers.
The commission’s intervention prompted MultiChoice to seek judicial relief against what it considered excessive regulatory interference.
Earlier in the proceedings, it was reported that Justice Omotosho had issued an interim injunction restraining the FCCPC from taking any regulatory measures against MultiChoice following the announcement of its price increases. This order came in response to an ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal counsel, Moyosore J. Onibanjo (SAN).
The motion, brought before the court under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, sought temporary protection against any punitive actions that could be taken by the regulatory body while the matter was still under judicial review.
Before the court’s intervention, the FCCPC had taken proactive steps by summoning MultiChoice Nigeria to explain the rationale behind its frequent price hikes. The commission expressed concerns that MultiChoice’s actions could amount to market dominance abuse, anti-competitive behavior, and consumer exploitation.
As part of its regulatory oversight, the FCCPC mandated that the company’s CEO appear at an investigative hearing scheduled for February 27, 2025. The commission further warned that failure to provide a satisfactory justification for the price increases could result in significant regulatory sanctions.
In response to the FCCPC’s directives, MultiChoice’s legal team filed an application seeking an interim order to prevent the regulatory body from pursuing any form of prosecution or enforcement action based on its letter dated March 3, 2025.
The company argued that since the legal dispute had not been resolved, it should not be subjected to any form of penalties or regulatory constraints until the court had rendered its final decision. The legal team insisted that any adverse action taken by the FCCPC before a formal ruling would constitute an abuse of regulatory power.
Arguing on behalf of MultiChoice, Onibanjo contended that Nigeria operates under a free-market system, meaning that businesses have the autonomy to set their prices without seeking regulatory approval. He asserted that the FCCPC Act does not empower the commission to dictate or regulate the pricing of goods and services, particularly when such businesses operate without government subsidies or monopolistic privileges.
According to Onibanjo, the intervention by the FCCPC was a direct overreach of its statutory mandate and an infringement on the principles of economic freedom.
On the other hand, the FCCPC, represented by lead counsel Prof. Joe Agbugu (SAN), countered MultiChoice’s arguments by emphasizing that the company had already acknowledged the commission’s authority by notifying it of the price changes on February 25, 2025.
This notification was made prior to the planned implementation date of March 1, 2025. According to Agbugu, this act of notification demonstrated that MultiChoice understood the importance of regulatory engagement on matters that could affect market competition and consumer welfare.
Prof. Agbugu further explained that the FCCPC had extended an invitation to MultiChoice for a formal discussion regarding the price hike. The meeting, initially scheduled for February 27, was later postponed to March 6, 2025, at the request of MultiChoice.
However, despite this rescheduling, the FCCPC had issued a directive instructing MultiChoice to temporarily suspend the price increase pending further deliberation. The regulatory body maintained that such measures were necessary to protect consumers from unfair pricing practices.
According to the FCCPC’s argument, the case was not about direct price regulation but rather about ensuring that MultiChoice did not abuse its dominant market position. Agbugu stated that under the FCCPC Act, the commission has the authority to impose an “authorized price” on any dominant player in the industry if it determines that such an entity is engaging in practices that may be detrimental to consumers.
The FCCPC emphasized that its primary objective was to prevent businesses from leveraging their market power to impose unfair pricing structures on consumers.
However, Onibanjo rejected the FCCPC’s position, dismissing the argument of excessive pricing as an afterthought. He maintained that the commission lacked any legal basis to dictate how MultiChoice should structure its pricing model.
Furthermore, he argued that any effort to impose price controls required the explicit approval of the president, a power that the FCCPC did not possess. According to him, any attempt by the regulatory body to cap or restrict pricing would amount to unauthorized economic intervention and could set a dangerous precedent for private enterprises in Nigeria.
After listening to the extensive legal arguments from both sides, Justice Omotosho decided to reserve judgment on the matter. The court is expected to issue its final verdict on May 8, 2025.
The outcome of this case is anticipated to set a significant precedent regarding the extent of regulatory control that agencies like the FCCPC can exert over private companies operating in competitive sectors.
The case has also sparked widespread debate among legal and economic analysts, with opinions divided on the appropriate balance between consumer protection and free-market operations. While some argue that MultiChoice has the right to set its prices in accordance with market forces, others contend that unchecked pricing could lead to exploitation, necessitating regulatory oversight.
The upcoming judgment is therefore expected to clarify the boundaries of regulatory intervention in pricing matters.
As Nigerians await the court’s ruling, MultiChoice has maintained that it acted within its rights by announcing the price adjustments, which took effect on March 1, 2025.
The final judgment will determine whether the FCCPC overstepped its regulatory mandate or whether its actions were justified in the interest of fair competition and consumer protection.
