The Federal High Court in Lagos has reserved judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) contesting the legality of the Digital, Electronic, Online, and Non-traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON Regulations) issued by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). Justice A. L. Allagoa set July 20, 2026, as the judgment date after both parties adopted their final written addresses and concluded arguments in the case marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026.
Background of the Case
The parties engaged in extensive debates regarding the extent of the FCCPC's regulatory authority within Nigeria's digital economy and telecommunications sector. Although the litigants were not present in court, WASPAN was represented by senior advocates Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Chukwudi Enebeli (SAN), Muyiwa Odubela, and Pelumi Agbeyo. The FCCPC was represented by Olufunke Aboyade (SAN), along with A. Aribisala, B. Alexander, and I.M. Balogun.
Resolution of Contempt Proceedings
At the start of the proceedings, counsel informed the court that issues related to earlier contempt proceedings had been resolved amicably. Following this development, Pinheiro withdrew the Form 49 contempt process previously initiated, leading the court to strike out the application. The hearing then shifted to the FCCPC's preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.
Arguments on Preliminary Objection
Arguing the objection, Aboyade contended that the DEON Regulations had been in existence since July 2025 and questioned the delay in filing the action. She further argued that the regulations were introduced as consumer protection measures and maintained that the claimant failed to comply with mandatory statutory pre-action notice requirements before approaching the court. However, Pinheiro urged the court to dismiss the objection, arguing that the FCCPC improperly introduced disputed facts without supporting affidavit evidence. According to him, issues such as delay and alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements could not be validly raised through written submissions alone. The senior advocate further argued that constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to court override technical objections relating to pre-action notices when a litigant alleges imminent regulatory injury. Pinheiro also accused the FCCPC of adopting inconsistent legal positions by simultaneously challenging the jurisdiction of the court while seeking affirmative reliefs from the same court.
Substantive Claims
On the substantive suit, WASPAN urged the court to invalidate portions of the DEON Regulations on the grounds that the FCCPC exceeded its statutory powers. The claimant argued that while the FCCPC possesses the power to make regulations under its establishing law, those powers are restricted to consumer protection matters and cannot supersede sector-specific legislation regulating telecommunications and financial services. Pinheiro specifically argued that the Commission was unlawfully attempting to exercise powers already vested in the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). He further submitted that subsidiary legislation cannot override existing Acts of the National Assembly, insisting that the disputed regulations conflict with provisions of both the Nigerian Communications Act and the Central Bank of Nigeria Act.
FCCPC's Defense
In response, the FCCPC defended the validity of the regulations and insisted that its statutory mandate extends across sectors where consumer rights and market competition issues arise. Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings are entitled to formulate and argue independent legal issues in response to claims brought before the court. During the final exchanges, the claimant additionally challenged documentary exhibits tendered by the FCCPC, arguing that the materials lacked evidential value and failed to establish any direct connection between alleged “loan shark” activities and members of WASPAN.
Judgment Adjourned
After listening to all submissions, Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter until July 20 for judgment.
