FCCPC generates most revenue from fines for violation of responsibility, says Irukera

The chief executive officer of the Federal Competition and Protection Commission (FCCPC), Babatunde Irukera, has said that he would love to see a reduction in the violation of statutory responsibility by companies.

Irukera said this in a recent interview with ARISE NEWS where he also revealed that most of the internally generated revenue (IGR) of the FCCPC comes courtesy of the violation of statutory responsibility by companies.

The FCCPC boss added that he would be a very happy man even if the commission’s IGR drops as a result of fewer violations.

“Most of our revenue has come from violation of statutory Responsibility by companies. So, I say to us as regulators, we are not here to make money, we are not a government funding agency but in the absence of consequences people will continue to behave anyhow,” he said.

“So, the IGR is not so much of a mandate, it’s not that we have a target. It’s because people are doing wrong. I will be happy for our IGR to go down, not because we do less work but because people violate less.

“So, we proceeded in that manner and built our investigative capacity which I think is the most important thing because what I found out that the market is highly proliferated with all kinds of things, including the otherwise reputable businesses.”

Irukera further said that Nigeria as a country has a very nationally lazy approach to regulatory work.

The FCCPC head explained that this has made up a greater percentage of his quest for change through the commission.

Irukera also said that he turned down all types of collaboration or support from any company so the commission can hold them accountable for their wrongdoings.

“The CPC as it was, was completely a government funded agency with an average of one billion naira annually in terms of treasury funding which included payroll,” he said.

“When I took over the leadership there, I believed very strongly that Nigeria was such a large economy and we needed to regulate competition and a more robust provision to regulate even consumer protection.

“So, we got a new piece of legislation and from the day we operationalized that legislation, one of the things that I thought was that I think that we have a very nationally lazy approach to regulatory work.

“This is in the sense that the regulators live off either what comes from the government or what comes from the industries and I didn’t like that.”

He said he thought that a consumer protection regulator, especially competition regulator is a regulator that should facilitate business.