CPC vs Coca-Cola: The limits of reason

I have a strong fascination for Nigerian proverbs, and it increases every time I have had cause to explore the deeper meaning and the life lessons encoded in each one of those wise, witty sayings. But, as the full weight of a proverb is better felt in its native language, much of the impact of these proverbs often gets lost in translation.

Have you heard this one: “You have pulled the trigger, why chase after the bullet?” I heard it long ago from an elderly man who was admonishing a younger groom. The latter, obviously a conceited bully, was adamant on sending his wife packing for allegedly challenging his authority in public, even after the poor lady and his own parents had tired of explaining her action and begging for forgiveness.

That proverb is a subtle admonition usually to an aggrieved person who has begun to react beyond the limits of reason or is unwilling to let go, even after his point is made. In other words, it says, “You’ve made your point, don’t insist on a needless or foolish course to assuage your ego.”

This wise counsel comes to my mind each time I read another of the unending twist in the unnecessary and unfortunate media blitz on the court case involving the Consumer Protection Council (CPC) and Coca-Cola and its bottling partner, NBC, over “two short-filled cans of Sprite”. I normally do not like soap operas or anything resembling them. However, I have followed these obviously orchestrated media reports on CPC and Coca-Cola/NBC because it involves big business and a regulator.

It seems to me that on this particular issue, someone pulled the trigger and has been chasing after the bullet to guide it aright. I do not wish to be a bore by rehashing the background details; there is already enough online. Just in case you are late to the party, here is a summary: CPC investigated a consumer complaint in late 2013 involving two short-filled cans of Sprite during which it claimed to have found that Coca-Cola and its bottling partner, NBC, did not have processes for quality assurance, product traceability and consumer complaints resolution.

Consequently, the council directed the two companies to, among other measures, subject their production processes to its inspection for 12 months and to pay within 7 days a sum of N100,050,000 broken down as follows: N40 million as civil penalties, N60 million as cost of CPC’s investigations and N50,000 as compensation to the consumer/complainant. The two companies disagreed with the CPC’s investigation report and the attendant orders and therefore applied to the courts for judicial review of the orders. But CPC reported the matter to the attorney-general of the federation, who slammed criminal charges on the two companies and their CEOs, alleging failure to comply with the CPC orders.

So, which party pulled the trigger and is now chasing after the bullet? Every right-thinking person in our society ought to be glad that the CPC is standing up for our orphaned consumers and is taking big business to task in defence of the consumer. If, indeed, Coca-Cola and NBC have a poorer quality standard in our country and are deliberately short-changing consumers through “short-filling” their packages as the CPC seems to have alleged, then the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on both companies. But, more importantly, the processes for arriving at this very weighty conclusion and its consequent management must be such that would in the end portray CPC and the Nigerian government as acting within both the law and the limits of reason.

In my view, this does not seem to be the case and the CPC is unwittingly pulling the rug from its own feet through its ill-advised chase of the bullet, as its actions in almost every angle of this case appears excessive, if not precipitate. In the first instance, I hope that the agency has adequate technical capacity to investigate a food production facility and, if not, that it collaborated with sister agencies like NAFDAC and Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) to arrive at the conclusion that Coca-Cola’s production processes lacked effective quality assurance, as this is not a mean indictment for a company of Coca-Cola’s pedigree.

No less a commentator than Simon Kolawole in his back page piece in the November 31, 2014 edition of ThisDay on Sunday described the whopping sum of N100,050,000 that CPC imposed on Coca-Cola and NBC as “daylight robbery”. It cannot be better said. Also interesting is that CPC apportioned the lion’s share of N60 million to itself as cost of the investigation and another N40 million as civil penalties, whereas the poor consumer/complainant whose cause CPC is supposed to be fighting gets a paltry N50,000 or 0.05 percent of the booty.

CPC also appears to have been less tactful with the profuse manner it has used the media on the issue – from the press conference it hurriedly convened in Lagos in February where it showcased its investigation report hot from the press, to the clearly orchestrated same-day media blitz in October across print and online channels advertising the criminal charges and, of course, the sustained and sensational media coverage of subsequent court hearings in the matter.
Rather than this approach, to me, the agency should be focusing its mind and resources on winning the case in court, so that it can hopefully gain a judicial precedent that will establish the expansive scope to which it seems to have stretched its powers in the Coca-Cola/NBC matter. What if, after all of this media blitz, the court decides that CPC had acted out of order?

The agency’s media goal in this case seems to be to amplify the nuisance factor, and this may be anchored on the perception that multinational corporations become vulnerable whenever their reputation is threatened. The ultimate aim is possibly to weaken the companies’ resolve to press on with the judicial review and thereby force them to pay the outrageous sum or to some form of settlement arrangement in order to have peace. How else does one explain the criminalization of the companies’ decision to seek judicial review of the orders, the orchestrated media blitz on the criminal case and the latest twist, i.e., the unleashing of activist NGOs and lawyers, all of whom are accusing the companies of impunity?

The parties have a big day in court on December 18, when the trial judge is expected to deliver his ruling on the preliminary objections filed by the two companies challenging the competence of the prosecutor. Many observers have predicted that irrespective of the judge’s decision on this very issue, the CPC will exploit the court hearing to further its media agenda. Incidentally, the trial judge has been so helpful as to insist, according to media reports, on the two CEOs appearing in person in his courtroom, just so he can see them, even though there is nothing in law that supports his insistence and, according to him, he has no intention to dock them or ask them any question.

My piece of honest advice to the director-general of CPC is four-fold: first, the media is an unpredictable and often dangerous wave to ride to fame. Secondly, regulation is serious business and cannot be effectively and sustainably carried out with melodramatic approach. Thirdly, fixation on the Coca-Cola/NBC case seems to have blinded the agency to the entrenched abuses that consumers suffer in many sectors across our land. Finally, you have pulled the trigger, do not chase after the bullet. Let the courts finish the job!

KOLA OLUWO
Public affairs analyst