Court approves FCCPC’s probe of MTN

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has won an important court case that confirms its power to oversee fair competition and protect consumers in all industries, including mobile phone companies. This news came from Ondaje Ijagwu, FCCPC’s communications director, on Sunday.

Judge F.N. Ogazi made this ruling on Friday, February 7, 2025, in Lagos. The case started when Emeka Nnubia, who owns shares in MTN and works as a lawyer, tried to stop FCCPC from investigating MTN Nigeria. Nnubia claimed only the telecommunications regulator (NCC) should oversee phone companies, and worried that FCCPC’s investigation might break data protection laws.

The court decided that while a 2003 law gives NCC power over competition in telecommunications, this must be considered alongside a newer 2018 law that created FCCPC. The judge said the newer law takes priority when there are conflicts with the older one.

This means NCC isn’t the only agency that can regulate competition in telecommunications. Instead, both FCCPC and NCC share this responsibility, allowing them to work together to ensure fair business practices and protect consumers.

Read Also: Tariff hike: FCCPC vows strict enforcement, monitoring of telecom companies for compliance

The court also highlighted that the 2018 law requires the FCCPC to work with other regulators, including the NCC. This matches how things work in other countries, where consumer protection agencies cooperate with industry regulators.

The judge also said FCCPC doesn’t need to have formal agreements with other regulators before it can do its job. Rather, other regulators must work with FCCPC to decide how they’ll work together.

The ruling confirmed that FCCPC was allowed to demand information from MTN Nigeria as part of its investigation into possible unfair business practices. The court found this was legal and didn’t break any data protection laws, as FCCPC hadn’t asked for personal information.

While the judge recognised this case was important for the public, they decided not to award any money for legal costs, noting the case’s wider importance for competition and consumer protection laws in Nigeria.