Airtime Credit: Court Affirms FCCPC Powers, Dismisses Service Providers’ Suit

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos has affirmed the power of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to oversee Nigeria’s digital consumer lending sector, encompassing airtime and data lending services estimated at N400 billion.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa also dismissed a suit filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) contesting the legality of the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations.

WASPAN had filed the suit on 14th April 2026, seeking to halt key provisions of the “Deon Consumer Lending Regulations.”

It had argued that the regulations negatively impact its members, who operate in Nigeria’s digital lending sector.

In the judgment, the judge upheld the FCCPC’s enforcement of these regulations against operators within the digital consumer lending space, including providers of airtime credit services.

The court held that the contested provisions of the Deon Regulations were within the FCCPC’s powers and constitutionally valid, as they aim to protect consumers and foster competition.

The judge clarified that the FCCPC’s regulatory jurisdiction is constitutional, deriving from Sections 16(2)(c), 16(3), and 17(2)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, along with Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa further stated that Sections 104 and 105 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018 grant the FCCPC precedence in matters of competition and consumer protection, while sector regulators maintain their technical, licensing, and prudential roles.

He also maintained that the relationship between the FCCPC and sector regulators is one of coexistence rather than displacement.

The judge stated that the DEON Regulations are valid because they focus on consumer protection and competition issues rather than establishing a licensing regime for telecommunications services.

The court further held that there is no conflict between the FCCPA and the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, and both statutes can be interpreted harmoniously.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa explained that in cases involving competition and consumer protection, the FCCPA provides the legal framework, subject to the Constitution.

He stated, “The regulatory jurisdiction of the FCCPC is constitutional in origin and economy-wide in reach,” the judge stated, adding that “concurrency means coexistence, not displacement.”

Although the court rejected the FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction, it proceeded to rule on the substantive issues in favour of the Commission.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa dismissed all the reliefs sought by WASPAN and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

The judge also set aside four interim injunctions granted ex parte on 15 April 2026, which had barred the enforcement of the DEON Regulations.

He held that the grounds for the interim orders no longer applied following the dismissal of the main suit, observing that a statutory regulator should not normally be barred from performing its lawful functions.

Allowing the FCCPC’s cross-reliefs, the court confirmed that under Section 163 of the FCCPA, the Commission is authorised to establish regulations governing Nigeria’s digital, electronic, online, and non-traditional consumer lending market.

The judge also reiterated the FCCPC’s precedence in competition and consumer protection matters, clarifying that this authority operates alongside, rather than superseding, the statutory functions of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

Given the national significance of the issues involved, Justice Lewis-Allagoa chose not to make any order regarding costs.

The case followed the FCCPC’s introduction of the DEON Regulations to enhance oversight of Nigeria’s digital lending industry amid concerns over certain online lenders’ conduct.