By Hassanat Adebowale
A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking any punitive actions against MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd in connection with the recent increase in DStv and GOtv subscription rates.
Justice James Omotosho issued the order on Wednesday following an ex-parte motion filed by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, counsel for MultiChoice. The motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, sought to prevent the FCCPC from implementing any sanctions against the company until the determination of a pending motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice to appear for a hearing on February 27 to explain its March 1 price hike for subscription packages. The commission expressed concerns over recurring price increases, possible abuse of market dominance, and anti-competitive practices in the pay-TV sector. It warned that failure to provide sufficient justification for the price adjustments could lead to sanctions.
In response, MultiChoice filed a suit on March 3, challenging the FCCPC’s authority to regulate subscription fees. Onigbanjo argued that Nigeria operates a free-market economy where businesses are not required to seek government approval before adjusting prices. He also pointed out that the FCCPC Act does not empower the commission to control pricing.
The company contended that the FCCPC’s directive to suspend the price hike was unlawful. MultiChoice also emphasized that its subscription rates in Nigeria are the lowest among the countries in which it operates, citing the Premium package, which costs $29.81 in Nigeria compared to $85.11 in Kenya.
In granting the interim injunction, Justice Omotosho prohibited the FCCPC from imposing any penalties or administrative actions against MultiChoice pending the resolution of the case. The judge also ordered an accelerated hearing and adjourned the matter to March 27.
This case emphasizes the fine line between protecting consumers and allowing businesses the freedom to operate in a free market under Nigerian law. While the FCCPC Act gives the commission the authority to prevent unfair practices and ensure healthy competition, it does not clearly empower the agency to regulate prices directly.
However, if MultiChoice is found to have used its dominant position in the market to place an unfair financial burden on consumers, the FCCPC might rely on the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) to justify stepping in.
The court’s decision will likely set a significant precedent, defining how much authority Nigerian regulators have in overseeing pricing policies of private companies, especially in sectors with limited competition. This could have lasting implications for both businesses and consumers.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com