By Ayotunde Moses

For months, Nigeria’s estimated N300 billion to N400 billion airtime and data credit market operated under a cloud of regulatory uncertainty.

Telecommunications operators, value-added service providers, fintech firms and investors found themselves caught between two powerful regulators—the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC)—whose overlapping assertions of authority raised fears of dual regulation, compliance uncertainty and service disruption.

When the Federal High Court in Lagos delivered judgment in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/760/2026 between the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) and the FCCPC, it did more than determine the legality of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations. It articulated a principle that could shape regulatory oversight far beyond the telecommunications industry.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa captured that principle succinctly: “Concurrency means coexistence, not displacement.”

In one sentence, the court affirmed that regulators with overlapping statutory responsibilities can operate side by side without usurping each other’s mandates.

That principle is emerging as the judgment’s most enduring legacy.

More Than a Telecom Dispute

Public attention initially focused on whether the FCCPC could regulate airtime lending and whether the DEON Regulations would survive judicial scrutiny.

The court answered both questions decisively.

It upheld the validity of the DEON Regulations and affirmed the FCCPC’s powers under Sections 104, 105, 106 and 163 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act to regulate consumer protection and competition.

At the same time, however, the court reaffirmed that the FCCPC does not possess statutory authority to issue telecommunications licences, preserving the Nigerian Communications Commission’s exclusive licensing role under the Nigerian Communications Act.

Rather than producing a winner-takes-all outcome, the judgment drew a constitutional boundary between regulation and licensing.

For Nigeria’s increasingly interconnected digital economy, that distinction may prove more consequential than the outcome of the litigation itself.

“The FCCPC may enforce the DEON Regulations in so far as they relate to consumer protection. It may not, under the cover of those Regulations or any other instrument, constitute itself as a licensing body for the telecommunications sector. Any attempt by the FCCPC to exercise licensing powers over WASPAN’s members will have no legal foundation, as affirmed by the Federal High Court today,” WASPAN stated after the judgement.

The New Question the Judgment Has Created

Even as the ruling settled the jurisdictional dispute, it opened another issue likely to dominate regulatory discussions in the coming months.

If the FCCPC cannot issue telecommunications licences, what is the legal status of the five firms approved under the Commission’s DEON framework to provide airtime and data-credit services?

That question has quickly become one of the most significant unresolved consequences of the judgment.

Lawyer and public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja believes the distinction made by the court goes to the heart of the issue.

“Regulating a market and licensing operators are fundamentally different powers,” he said, adding “The FCCPC can regulate conduct but cannot issue licences. The NCC remains the sole licensing authority.”

According to Onoja, the judgment inevitably raises questions about the legal basis upon which approvals issued under the DEON framework should now be viewed.

Concurrency, Not Conflict

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment is its rejection of regulatory rivalry.

For years, businesses operating across sectors have complained about overlapping directives from multiple agencies, often resulting in uncertainty, duplicated compliance obligations and costly litigation.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s reasoning offers a different model.

Rather than treating concurrent statutory powers as mutually exclusive, the judgment recognises that different regulators may oversee different aspects of the same market.

The FCCPC retains responsibility for consumer protection, competition, unfair market practices and abusive commercial conduct.

The NCC, on the other hand, remains the statutory authority responsible for telecommunications licensing, technical regulation, spectrum management and sector oversight.

The judgment therefore rejects the notion that concurrent jurisdiction automatically translates into institutional conflict.

Instead, it establishes that statutory mandates should complement—not displace—one another.

Why the Decision Matters Beyond Telecom

Although the dispute arose from Nigeria’s airtime lending market, the court’s reasoning has implications across the wider economy.

Increasingly, sectors such as financial technology, digital payments, health technology, transportation and artificial intelligence operate across traditional regulatory boundaries.

Banks answer to the Central Bank of Nigeria on prudential matters while remaining subject to consumer protection standards.

Airlines comply with aviation safety regulators while also falling within broader consumer rights frameworks.

Electricity providers answer to sector regulators while remaining accountable under general competition and consumer protection laws.

The WASPAN judgment suggests that such overlap is neither unusual nor unlawful, provided each regulator remains within the powers expressly granted by statute.

For businesses, the message is equally significant.

Compliance can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of a single regulator. Companies operating in increasingly converged markets must satisfy sector-specific technical rules while complying with economy-wide competition and consumer protection obligations.

From Legal Certainty to Regulatory Coordination

Industry stakeholders believe the judgment should now trigger closer institutional cooperation rather than renewed conflict.

Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) Chairman, Gbenga Adebayo, described the judgment as an opportunity to establish a more coordinated regulatory framework.

“The court has done something important,” Adebayo said. “It has confirmed the FCCPC’s authority and, in the same breath, affirmed that the NCC’s role is preserved. Concurrency means coexistence. The industry now expects both regulators to establish the coordination framework that the court’s reasoning requires.”

He urged both regulators to engage operators before introducing future enforcement measures, recalling that airtime credit services were suspended for about three months earlier this year before eventually being restored.

“Forty million Nigerians depend on these services,” Adebayo said. “The court has made clear that both regulators have a role. The industry is asking them to define how that works before any action that could disrupt access again.”

An Opportunity for Regulatory Reform

The judgment also arrives at a time when the Federal Government is seeking to improve Nigeria’s business environment through more predictable regulation.

Industry observers note that the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council’s directive requiring Regulatory Impact Assessments before major regulatory interventions aligns closely with the court’s emphasis on clearly defined statutory responsibilities.

Whether the judgment ultimately reshapes Nigeria’s regulatory culture will depend less on the litigation itself than on how regulators respond to it.

For the FCCPC, the ruling affirms its central role in consumer protection and competition policy.

For the NCC, it reinforces its exclusive statutory authority over telecommunications licensing.

For businesses, it offers greater certainty about where regulatory responsibilities begin and end.

Yet one important issue remains unresolved.

The implications of the judgment for firms already approved under the DEON framework are likely to remain the subject of legal and regulatory scrutiny in the months ahead.

What is clear, however, is that the Federal High Court has provided something the industry had long demanded: a clearer framework for understanding how concurrent regulators should exercise their powers in an increasingly interconnected economy.

In that sense, the WASPAN judgment is no longer simply about airtime lending.

It has become a reference point in the continuing evolution of regulatory governance in Nigeria—one that could shape how public institutions exercise statutory authority long after the immediate dispute has faded.

Ayotunde Moses Email:[email protected]