By Ayotunde Moses

Nigeria’s estimated ₦400 billion airtime credit market has become the latest battleground in a wider debate over how regulators should govern the country’s rapidly evolving digital economy. 

With the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) taking its dispute with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to the Court of Appeal, the case now extends beyond the fate of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations 2025 to a more fundamental question: where should the boundaries between sector regulators and cross-sector consumer protection authorities be drawn?

Barely 24 hours after the Federal High Court in Lagos dismissed a suit challenging the FCCPC’s oversight of digital lending, WASPAN filed a Notice of Appeal alongside a Motion on Notice seeking an injunction to preserve the pre-judgment status quo.

The association wants the Court of Appeal to restrain the FCCPC from enforcing the DEON Regulations pending the determination of its appeal, arguing that immediate implementation could expose its members to sanctions and disrupt their operations before the appellate court has the opportunity to determine the scope of the Commission’s powers.

The urgency of the application followed the FCCPC’s announcement that it had resumed full enforcement of the regulations after the July 20 judgment delivered by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa. 

In a statement titled “FCCPC Resumes Digital Lending Regulation,” the Commission declared that the legal impediments to enforcement had been removed, making the DEON framework fully operational across digital lending services, including telecommunications-enabled credit products.

WASPAN, however, contends that the legal questions raised by the case remain unresolved and should be settled before fresh enforcement measures are introduced.

In an affidavit supporting the application, the association’s Chairman, Ayo Stuffman, warned that members faced the risk of regulatory actions capable of causing lasting commercial damage.

“It is feared that if the Plaintiff’s members do not comply with DEON Consumer Lending Regulations 2025… the Defendant may proceed to take steps that are adverse and detrimental to the existence and business of the Plaintiff’s members,” he stated.

He added: “Unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the Plaintiff’s members will continue to suffer regulatory uncertainty, exposure to sanctions, and disruption of their lawful business activities.”

Represented by Senior Advocates of Nigeria Chukwudi Enebeli and Kemi Pinheiro, WASPAN argues that allowing the regulations to be enforced while the appeal is pending could effectively render any eventual decision of the Court of Appeal academic.

Yet, the significance of the appeal stretches well beyond the immediate interests of the litigants.

At its core is a question that is becoming increasingly relevant in Nigeria’s technology ecosystem: how should statutory regulators exercise overlapping powers in industries where telecommunications, financial services and digital platforms increasingly converge?

Value Added Service (VAS) providers, including companies supporting airtime credit services, are licensed and regulated by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) under the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

The FCCPC, on the other hand, maintains that its mandate under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), 2018 extends across every sector where consumer rights and competition issues arise, including digital lending services delivered through telecommunications networks.

The High Court sought to reconcile those positions.

In dismissing WASPAN’s suit, Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that the FCCPC possesses statutory authority under the FCCPA to regulate market conduct and consumer protection. 

At the same time, the court affirmed that the Commission has no statutory authority to issue telecommunications operating licences, leaving that responsibility exclusively with the NCC.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment was the court’s articulation of the principle of regulatory concurrency.

“Concurrency means coexistence, not displacement,” the judge held, signalling that overlapping statutory responsibilities are not inherently incompatible provided each regulator operates within the limits established by law.

That finding now lies at the heart of WASPAN’s appeal.

While the FCCPC interprets the judgment as judicial affirmation of its authority to regulate digital lending practices, WASPAN argues that the Court of Appeal should define more precisely where consumer protection oversight ends and telecommunications regulation begins.

Responding to the judgment, FCCPC Director of Corporate Affairs, Ondaje Ijagwu, said the Commission remained committed to protecting consumers through the DEON framework, which he said was designed to eliminate unconscionable fees, unauthorised lending practices and anti-competitive conduct.

Telecommunications operators have adopted a more measured position.

ALTON Chairman, Gbenga Adebayo, welcomed the court’s affirmation that the NCC remains Nigeria’s sole telecommunications licensing authority but urged greater coordination between the two regulators to avoid unintended consequences for consumers.

“Forty million Nigerians depend on these services,” Adebayo said, calling for clear operational protocols that would prevent disruptions to airtime credit services.

For WASPAN, however, the appeal is ultimately about obtaining judicial clarity on the legal limits of concurrent regulation.

Its spokesperson, Osa Umweni, said that while the High Court upheld the FCCPC’s consumer protection mandate, it also reinforced one of the association’s principal arguments by confirming that the Commission cannot function as a telecommunications licensing authority.

“That finding directly validates one of WASPAN’s core positions: that the NCC is and remains our primary regulator,” Umweni said, adding that the appeal seeks to define the legal boundaries of secondary regulatory oversight rather than eliminate consumer protection.

The implications of the dispute extend well beyond airtime lending.

As telecommunications increasingly converges with financial technology, digital payments and online commerce, businesses are becoming subject to overlapping oversight by multiple regulators pursuing different statutory objectives. 

The outcome of the appeal could therefore shape future regulatory relationships across several sectors of Nigeria’s digital economy.

For investors, greater legal certainty could strengthen confidence in Nigeria’s regulatory environment. For operators, it may determine future compliance obligations and the cost of doing business.

For consumers, the stakes are equally significant, given that an estimated 40 million Nigerians rely on airtime credit services to stay connected between income cycles.

The Court of Appeal will ultimately determine whether the status quo should be preserved while the substantive appeal is heard. But the larger issue before it is likely to resonate long after this dispute is resolved.

Its eventual decision could become a landmark authority on how Nigeria balances consumer protection with sector-specific regulation in an increasingly interconnected digital economy. 

Whatever the outcome, the case has already evolved into far more than a legal contest over the DEON Regulations. It is now a defining test of how regulatory authority will be exercised in one of Africa’s largest and fastest-growing digital markets.

Ayotunde Moses can be reached on [email protected]