Court Sets May 8 for Judgment as MultiChoice Battles FCCPC Over Legality of Pay-TV Subscription Price Hike and Regulatory Sanctions
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for judgment in a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
MultiChoice is seeking to prevent the FCCPC from imposing sanctions over its recent increase in DStv and GOtv subscription fees. Justice James Omotosho set the judgment date on Thursday after counsel for MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu (SAN), presented their arguments and adopted their legal processes.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that on March 12, Justice Omotosho had issued an interim order restraining the FCCPC from taking any regulatory action against MultiChoice until the substantive suit was heard and determined. The order was granted following an ex-parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025.
FCCPC’s Investigation into MultiChoice Price Hike
The FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd. to explain the price review of its subscription packages, effective from March 1. The commission also directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on February 27, citing concerns over frequent price hikes, possible market dominance abuse, and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV sector.
The regulatory body warned that if MultiChoice failed to justify the price adjustments or comply with fair market principles, it would face regulatory sanctions. However, in response, MultiChoice sought an interim injunction to restrain the FCCPC and its officials from executing any threats against it. The company also requested an order preventing the FCCPC from issuing further directives that could disrupt its business operations pending the court’s ruling.
Legal Arguments in Court
At Thursday’s hearing, Onigbanjo informed the court that the matter was set for the hearing of the substantive suit. He stated that the FCCPC had filed a counter affidavit, to which MultiChoice responded with a further affidavit and a reply on points of law.
While adopting his legal submissions, Onigbanjo argued that the FCCPC lacks the legal authority to control the prices MultiChoice sets for its services. He questioned whether the FCCPC Act, 2018, grants the commission such regulatory power, insisting that price regulation falls exclusively under the authority of the President of Nigeria.
Citing previous rulings by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (FCCPT) in an exhibit submitted to the court, Onigbanjo maintained that only the President has the power to regulate the prices of goods and services. He also referenced an interview in which the President affirmed his administration’s stance against price control, favoring a market-driven pricing system.
Onigbanjo further accused the FCCPC of unfairly targeting MultiChoice, arguing that inflation and economic factors had forced businesses across various industries—including telecommunications and aviation—to increase their prices, yet only MultiChoice faced scrutiny from the commission.
“The only company that has not increased prices in Nigeria today is the plaintiff (MultiChoice),” he argued. “Telecom providers, airlines, even lawyers have adjusted their fees, but only MultiChoice is being challenged.”
He also contended that the FCCPC had acted prematurely by suspending MultiChoice’s price hike before granting the company an opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principle of fair hearing.
FCCPC Defends Regulatory Authority
In response, FCCPC’s counsel, Prof. Abugu, opposed MultiChoice’s claims, arguing that the commission acted within its statutory mandate. He presented a 34-paragraph counter affidavit dated March 20, accompanied by four exhibits, and urged the court to dismiss MultiChoice’s reliefs.
Abugu maintained that the FCCPC is empowered under its 2018 Act to investigate market practices and protect consumer interests. He explained that MultiChoice had initially informed the FCCPC on February 25 about its planned price increase, prompting the commission to request an investigative hearing on February 27. However, MultiChoice requested a postponement to March 6.
He noted that while the FCCPC agreed to the postponement, it also directed MultiChoice to hold off on implementing the new prices until the hearing took place. However, MultiChoice proceeded with the price hike on March 1 and simultaneously sought an injunction against the FCCPC on March 3.
“Clearly, the plaintiff has not come with clean hands,” Abugu said, accusing MultiChoice of avoiding regulatory scrutiny.
He clarified that while the FCCPC does not fix prices, Sections 80 and 90(2) of its Act empower it to supervise pricing practices to prevent exploitation and protect consumer interests. He argued that the commission’s intervention was aimed at preventing excessive or unjustified price hikes, rather than setting specific prices.
“What they have done is run away from the opportunity to be interrogated on the appropriate pricing,” Abugu stated. “They refused to engage with the commission, yet they want the court to shield them.”
Abugu dismissed MultiChoice’s claims of discrimination, asserting that the commission’s role extends beyond the pay-TV sector to other industries. He emphasized that the FCCPC’s authority to prevent abuse of market dominance is enshrined in Sections 70 and 72 to 78 of its Act.
He also rejected Onigbanjo’s reference to past tribunal rulings, arguing that the tribunal is an inferior body to the Federal High Court.
Abugu concluded by urging the court to uphold the FCCPC’s authority and compel MultiChoice to comply with regulatory processes rather than bypassing them through litigation.
Following both parties’ submissions, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case for judgment on May 8.
Follow News Review on Facebook and X
.){kind=link}