The Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled in favor of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) in a legal dispute involving MTN Nigeria that the commission has regulatory authority over competition and consumer protection in the telecommunications sector.
The ruling was delivered by Justice F.N. Ogazi who reinforces FCCPC’s jurisdiction over telecom-related competition matters and rejected arguments that the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has exclusive control over the sector.
The case was filed by Emeka Nnubia, a shareholder of MTN and a legal practitioner, who sought to prevent the FCCPC from investigating MTN Nigeria.
He argued that the NCC was the sole regulator of the telecom industry and that FCCPC’s inquiry could potentially violate data protection laws.
However, the court ruled that Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, which grants the NCC jurisdiction over competition in the telecom industry, must be interpreted alongside Section 104 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018.
It stated that the latter law establishes the FCCPC as the “primary regulatory authority on competition and consumer protection across all sectors,” including telecommunications.
The judgment further clarified that “FCCPA, being a later legislation, supersedes conflicting provisions of the NCA 2003 to the extent that they seek to exclude FCCPC’s oversight in the telecommunications industry.”
With this ruling, the court upheld FCCPC’s authority to investigate MTN for potential anti-competitive practices, affirming that “FCCPC acted within its statutory powers in issuing a summons to MTN Nigeria as part of its ongoing inquiry,” and that “the commission’s summons and request to produce was found to be lawful and within the scope of FCCPC’s investigative powers.”
The court also dismissed concerns about data protection violations, holding that “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.” It clarified that “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 ruling also revealed that the FCCPC does not require a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with sector regulators before carrying out its statutory functions.
Instead, the court ruled, “Entering into a Memorandum of Understanding 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.”
