The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has responded to a Federal High Court ruling that affirmed its legal authority to investigate MultiChoice Nigeria over recent price hikes on its DStv and GOtv platforms.
MultiChoice had sought to restrain the commission from probing the company’s subscription increases, arguing that the FCCPC was acting beyond its powers. However, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court dismissed the suit, describing it as an abuse of court process.
Reacting to the ruling in a statement released on Thursday and signed by the FCCPC’s Director of Corporate Affairs, Mr Ondaje Ijagwu, the commission quoted its Executive Vice Chairman, Mr Tunji Bello, who said the decision reinforced the commission’s statutory mandate.
“This judgment marks a significant step against procedural tactics that attempt to obstruct lawful regulatory oversight,” Bello said. “It sends a clear message that regulatory agencies will not be hindered by procedural roadblocks when exercising their lawful mandate to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the marketplace.”
According to Bello, the commission remains committed to enforcing consumer protection laws and will continue to investigate exploitative pricing and other anti-consumer conduct under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.
The commission said MultiChoice had declined an invitation for dialogue in February and instead implemented another round of subscription rate increases, only eight months after a previous hike. Rather than respond to the commission’s inquiries, the company filed a legal suit challenging the FCCPC’s authority to investigate.
During the proceedings, MultiChoice’s counsel, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), had argued that the commission continued to issue letters threatening sanctions despite the pending court action. The court ultimately rejected the application.
With the dismissal of the case, the FCCPC is expected to continue its investigation into MultiChoice’s pricing decisions and assess whether they constitute anti-competitive or exploitative practices.
