The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled May 8, 2025, for judgment in a pivotal case between MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), in a dispute centered on subscription price hikes for DStv and GOtv services.
Presiding over the matter, Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after both parties concluded their final submissions and adopted their written addresses. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, has drawn significant attention due to its potential implications for consumer rights and market regulation in Nigeria’s broadcast industry.
At the heart of the legal contest is MultiChoice's attempt to shield itself from regulatory sanctions over its recent subscription fee increases. The company is seeking judicial backing to prevent the FCCPC from taking punitive actions, arguing that the Commission lacks statutory authority to control or dictate pricing.
Representing MultiChoice, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Moyosore Onigbanjo emphasized that the core legal issue is whether the FCCPC possesses the powers to interfere with or regulate the prices at which MultiChoice offers its services. While acknowledging the Commission’s general regulatory role, Onigbanjo contended that the enabling law does not authorize it to engage in price control.
He referenced a previous legal decision in which the tribunal had ruled that only the President has constitutional powers to regulate prices—a power the current administration has reportedly chosen not to exercise, instead favoring market-determined pricing structures.
Onigbanjo also criticized the FCCPC’s actions as discriminatory, arguing that many companies across various sectors have adjusted their prices in response to inflation and economic challenges without interference. He questioned why MultiChoice was being singled out, urging the court to grant all reliefs sought by the company.
In a counterargument, FCCPC’s counsel, Professor Joseph Abugu (SAN), asked the court to focus on the real issue—whether the price increase was justified or exploitative, not whether the Commission was attempting to fix prices.
Abugu explained that the FCCPC had engaged MultiChoice following its announcement of a price increase effective March 1, 2025. He said the Commission requested the company to delay implementation pending an investigation, but MultiChoice instead approached the court.
He insisted that the FCCPC is not seeking to impose specific prices but rather to investigate whether the increases constitute an abuse of dominant market position and amount to exploitative pricing—a responsibility clearly defined within its statutory mandate.
According to Abugu, MultiChoice holds a dominant share in Nigeria’s pay-TV sector, and its pricing actions have far-reaching effects on consumers. He maintained that the Commission has both the authority and duty to intervene in such cases to prevent consumer exploitation.
Responding to the allegation of discriminatory treatment, Abugu argued that entities in dominant market positions are subject to closer scrutiny, especially when their pricing practices appear excessive.
He urged the court to dismiss the suit, asserting that the legal action undermines the FCCPC’s core function of protecting Nigerian consumers. “This case is not about arbitrary price control,” he stated. “It is about protecting the public from market abuse.”
The court’s verdict in May is expected to set a significant precedent on the extent of regulatory oversight over private sector pricing and consumer protection in Nigeria’s increasingly competitive media and entertainment landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment