A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, FCCPC, has the legal authority to investigate MTN, Airtel, Glo, 9mobile and other telecommunications companies in Nigeria.
The case, presided over by Justice F.N. Ogazi, was filed by Emeka Nnubia, a shareholder of MTN and a legal practitioner.
While Nnubia represented himself in the case, Mr Abimbola Ojenike and Ms. Oluwadamilola Omotosho appeared for the FCCPC, while Mr Chinonso Ekuma represented MTN Nigeria.
Nnubia had sought to prevent the FCCPC from investigating MTN Nigeria, arguing that the Nigerian Communications Commission, NCC, was the sole regulator of the telecom sector.
He also contended that FCCPC’s inquiry could violate data protection laws.
However, the court ruled that Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, which grants the NCC jurisdiction over competition matters in telecommunications, must be read alongside Section 104 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018.
It stated that the latter law establishes the FCCPC as the “primary regulatory authority on competition and consumer protection across all sectors,” including telecommunications.
The court further held that the FCCPA, being later legislation, “supersedes conflicting provisions of the NCA 2003 to the extent that they seek to exclude FCCPC’s oversight in the telecommunications industry.”
In its ruling, the court upheld FCCPC’s right to investigate MTN for potential anti-competitive practices.
It stated, “FCCPC acted within its statutory powers in issuing a Summons to MTN Nigeria as part of its ongoing inquiry,” emphasising that the commission’s “Summons and Request to Produce was found to be lawful and within the scope of FCCPC’s investigative powers.”
The court also dismissed concerns about data protection violations, holding that “FCCPC’s request for information from MTN did not violate any data protection laws, including the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and the NCA 2003.”
It clarified, “No personal data was requested, and MTN’s obligation to disclose information in the public interest is a legitimate basis for compliance with FCCPC’s inquiry.”
The court said: “Entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with sector regulators is not a condition precedent for FCCPC’s enforcement of its statutory functions. Instead, it is the obligation of sector regulators to engage with FCCPC to define working arrangements, not the other way round.”
The judgment also reinforced the principle of regulatory independence, rejecting any attempt to hinder FCCPC from carrying out its statutory mandate.
The court noted that “preventing a regulator from discharging its duties violates the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”
Ondaje Ijagwu, Director of Corporate Affairs at FCCPC, in a statement, described the ruling as a significant affirmation of the commission’s statutory mandate.
