By Charles Sofoluwe

The legal contest over the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (FCCPC) Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations 2025 (DEON Regulations) has entered a significant new phase, with the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) asking the Court of Appeal to determine the limits of regulatory authority within Nigeria’s telecommunications sector.

 

The appeal follows the July 20, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos, where Justice A.L. Allagoa dismissed WASPAN’s challenge to the regulations, holding that the FCCPC acted within its statutory powers in issuing the DEON Regulations.

 

 

The ruling immediately revived enforcement of the regulations after months of suspension. In a statement issued shortly after the judgment, FCCPC Director of Corporate Affairs, Ondaje Ijagwu, said the legal obstacle to enforcement had been removed.

 

 

“The legal impediment that had necessitated the Commission’s temporary suspension of implementation and enforcement of the DEON Regulations has been removed, and the Regulations are once again fully operational and enforceable,” he said.

 

 

Within 24 hours, however, WASPAN filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, alongside an application before the Federal High Court seeking an injunction pending the determination of the appeal.

 

 

According to an affidavit deposed to by the association’s Chairman, Ayo Stuffman, continued enforcement of the regulations while the appeal is pending would expose members to regulatory uncertainty, possible sanctions and operational disruptions.

 

 

“The Plaintiff’s members will continue to suffer regulatory uncertainty, exposure to sanctions, and disruption of their lawful business activities… members of the Plaintiff are constrained and overridden with respect to their operational freedom under their Primary regulator, the Nigerian Communications Commission,” the affidavit states.

 

 

At the heart of the appeal is a question that extends beyond airtime lending: where does the authority of Nigeria’s sector-specific regulators end, and where does that of economy-wide regulators begin?

 

 

WASPAN’s appeal, settled by Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro and Chukwudi Enebeli, raises eight grounds challenging the High Court’s interpretation of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) and the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA).

 

 

Central to the dispute is Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, which gives the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) responsibility for promoting competition and protecting consumers within the telecommunications industry.

 

 

WASPAN argues that this sector-specific mandate constitutes the exception contemplated under Section 2(1) of the FCCPA, which provides that the Act applies across the economy except where legislation indicates otherwise.

 

 

According to the appeal, the trial court erred by treating the FCCPC’s powers as overriding those of the NCC.

 

 

“The provisions of Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act which vest the Nigerian Communications Commission (‘NCC’), the primary regulator of the Appellant, exclusive responsibility for promoting fair competition and protecting consumers within the telecommunication industry is the ‘indication’ envisaged under Section 2(1) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018,” the notice of appeal states.

 

 

The association further argues that Section 104 of the FCCPA cannot be interpreted as empowering the FCCPC to displace the specialised regulatory framework established under the Nigerian Communications Act.

 

Another major issue concerns the FCCPC’s regulation-making powers.

 

 

WASPAN contends that Section 163 of the FCCPA authorises the Commission to make subsidiary legislation only within the scope specifically contemplated by the Act and does not confer unrestricted authority over every commercial activity.

 

 

According to the appeal, the DEON Regulations extend beyond the statutory boundaries intended by the National Assembly.

 

 

To support its argument, the association relies on judicial authorities, including Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police and State v. Egigia, maintaining that statutory powers must be interpreted strictly and cannot be expanded by implication.

 

 

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the appeal is its challenge to what it describes as inconsistencies within the High Court’s reasoning.

 

 

The trial court acknowledged that the FCCPC does not possess independent licensing powers over telecommunications operators and cannot assume the statutory functions of the NCC.

 

 

However, it nevertheless upheld the validity of the DEON Regulations, including Paragraph 7, which requires operators to obtain the Commission’s approval before offering certain digital lending services.

 

WASPAN argues that these findings are incompatible.

 

 

“Having found that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission lacks statutory licensing powers, the Honourable Lower Court ought to have declared Paragraph 7 of the DEON Regulations ultra vires, null and void to the extent that it purports to vest the powers of granting approvals to the Commission,” the appeal states, adding that the lower court thereby committed “a legal summersault.”

 

 

The association also raises constitutional issues.

 

 

It argues that requiring FCCPC approval before entering partnerships with intermediaries or service providers infringes the freedom of association guaranteed under Section 40 of the Constitution.

 

 

According to the appeal, operators should remain free to determine their commercial relationships under the regulatory supervision of the NCC rather than through additional approval requirements imposed by subsidiary legislation.

 

 

Pending the hearing of the appeal, WASPAN is asking the court to restrain the FCCPC from enforcing several provisions of the DEON Regulations, including paragraphs 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 27, 29 and 32, as well as from imposing sanctions on its members.

 

 

The association argues that permitting enforcement before the appeal is determined could render the appellate proceedings academic.

 

 

“If the instant application is refused and the Defendant proceeds to enforce the regulations against the Plaintiff and its members and the Plaintiff’s appeal succeeds at the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal will be presented with a fait accompli… and there could be no return to the status quo,” its written address states.

 

 

For its part, the FCCPC maintains that the DEON Regulations are designed to strengthen consumer protection in Nigeria’s rapidly expanding digital lending ecosystem and that the Federal High Court has affirmed the Commission’s authority to issue and enforce them.

 

 

The appeal therefore presents more than a disagreement over airtime lending. It raises fundamental questions about the relationship between sector regulators and economy-wide agencies, the interpretation of overlapping legislation and the limits of delegated regulatory powers.

 

 

The Court of Appeal’s eventual decision is expected to clarify the balance of regulatory authority between the FCCPC and sector-specific regulators such as the NCC.

 

 

Beyond telecommunications, the judgment could shape the future regulation of digital financial services, fintech partnerships and consumer protection, while providing greater certainty for businesses operating within Nigeria’s increasingly interconnected digital economy.

 

Charles Sofoluwe from Abeokuta, Ogun state

[email protected]