As it Rejects MultiChoice's Lawsuit Against the FCCPC, the Court Declares Nigeria to be a Free Market.

The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a lawsuit brought by MultiChoice Nigeria, the parent company of DStv and GOtv, which contested the intervention of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission regarding its recent increase in subscription prices. The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, characterized the lawsuit as an abuse of the court's process. MultiChoice Nigeria sought a ruling on whether the FCCPC had the authority under Section 17(a) of the FCCPC Act to issue an order preventing the company from raising its prices. Additionally, the applicant requested a declaration that the FCCPC's directive to reverse its price increase on pay-TV packages was discriminatory and in violation of Section 42 of the Constitution. In response, the FCCPC submitted a counter-affidavit, asserting that a similar case was already pending in the Lagos Division of the court. On March 1, 2025, MultiChoice had raised its subscription rates by as much as 25%, citing inflation and increased operational costs. In delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho stated that the lawsuit constituted an abuse of court process due to the existence of similar proceedings in Lagos. The judge remarked, 'This suit is an abuse of court processes and a duplicity of actions.' He emphasized that the plaintiff should have pursued its claims in the Lagos Division, rendering the current filing procedurally improper. 'The issues raised here can be dealt with in the suit filed in Lagos. The rule of law permits a counterclaim, and although the Lagos suit was initiated by the FCCPC, MultiChoice can counterclaim,' he stated. The judge further noted that the plaintiff could have addressed its concerns in the earlier suit without the need for a new filing. Justice Omotosho clarified that although the FCCPC possesses investigative powers as per its founding Act, it does not have the jurisdiction to set or suspend prices unless such authority is explicitly granted by the President through a formal gazetted instrument. He stated, 'The authority to set prices is solely that of the President. Any action taken without such delegation is invalid.' He further noted that Nigeria functions under a free market system, permitting service providers like MultiChoice to determine their pricing, with consumers having the option to accept or decline these prices. Justice Omotosho stressed that 'Nigeria's economy operates as a free market, with price controls only permissible when established by the President for an entire industry in accordance with Section 88 of the FCCPC Act.' He also remarked, 'If the President decides to set prices, it must apply to the entire industry and not just one entity unless that entity is a monopolist.' The judge ruled that the FCCPC's actions, including instructing MultiChoice to halt its price increase, infringed upon the company's right to a fair hearing and seemed to be selectively aimed. He rejected the FCCPC's claim that MultiChoice held a dominant market position, deeming it untenable. 'The use of services like those offered by the plaintiff is optional and not vital. Nigeria can function without them,' he stated. The judge further asserted that MultiChoice operates within a non-regulated sector with numerous competitors, and there was no evidence presented to the court indicating that its pricing was excessive. He concluded that MultiChoice's services are optional and not essential, and that the FCCPC's role is limited to investigating and reporting to the President, who possesses the authority to act under Section 88 of the Act. Justice Omotosho cautioned that efforts to impose price controls by regulatory bodies without proper legal foundation could dissuade investors and negatively impact the economy. The court reiterated that while the FCCPC may investigate market practices, it lacks the power to enforce price controls without the necessary legal authority.