A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lacks the legal authority to regulate or control prices in Nigeria’s free market economy. The landmark judgment reaffirms the constitutional right to market-driven pricing and limits regulatory overreach in commercial affairs.
The ruling, delivered by Justice James Omotosho, followed a suit filed by Multichoice Nigeria, operators of DStv and GOtv, challenging the FCCPC’s intervention in its subscription pricing structure. The company also sought legal protection from a separate case instituted by lawyer Festus Onifade, who had sought to block Multichoice from increasing subscription rates on its pay-TV platforms.
Although the court dismissed Multichoice’s suit as an abuse of court process—citing an existing similar matter between the parties—Justice Omotosho provided a definitive interpretation of the FCCPC’s regulatory limits.
“The power to fix prices cannot be exercised by any other person or agency except the President. If delegated, it must be by an instrument and published in the gazette,” the judge stated.
Citing Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), the court affirmed that only the President of Nigeria may regulate prices, and even then, only under specific conditions relating to essential goods or services. Any such delegation of power must be properly documented and gazetted—a condition absent in the current case.
Justice Omotosho emphasized that Nigeria operates an open market economy, where businesses are constitutionally free to determine prices based on market forces. He ruled that the FCCPC’s intervention in Multichoice’s pricing lacked legal backing and constituted regulatory overreach.
“In a free market, price controls can only apply across an industry and not be targeted at a single company—unless monopoly or dominant market power is clearly established,” the judge noted.
The court found no evidence presented by the FCCPC to prove that Multichoice holds a dominant market position or that its pricing was excessive or exploitative. The judge criticized the commission’s approach as discriminatory, pointing out that other pay-TV operators had not faced similar actions.
“The FCCPC’s responsibility is to monitor and act against anti-competitive practices. It is not compulsory for Nigerians to subscribe to Multichoice’s services,” Justice Omotosho ruled.
He further highlighted the existence of consumer choice in the pay-TV sector, reinforcing the principle of “willing buyer, willing seller” as the foundation of free enterprise.
The court also aligned with an earlier ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT), which dismissed a similar challenge against Multichoice. Justice Omotosho described the Tribunal’s decision as “well-considered.”
In conclusion, the court reaffirmed that price determination in a free market must be left to competitive forces, and any attempt to restrict pricing freedom must adhere strictly to the constitutional and statutory framework.
Discover more from SMALL BUSINESS INSIGHTS
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
