June 7, 2025
67E74E7C-7F81-46B1-AE12-13B9F3E39645

A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for its judgment in the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over the pay-TV provider’s recent subscription price hike.

Justice James Omotosho set the date after lawyers from both sides adopted and argued their written addresses for and against the suit.

The court had previously restrained the FCCPC from taking “any administrative steps” against MultiChoice following the company’s decision to increase prices for its DStv and GOtv services. This restraining order was granted after MultiChoice formally sought legal protection against potential regulatory sanctions.

During the proceedings, the court allowed the FCCPC to regularize its processes by granting an extension of time. It also approved MultiChoice’s request to withdraw an application for an interlocutory injunction, as the issue had been overtaken by events.

MultiChoice’s Argument: FCCPC Has No Right to Control Prices

Representing MultiChoice, lead counsel Charles Onigbanjo, SAN, argued that the key issue in the case was whether the FCCPC had the authority to regulate the prices at which the company offers its services to the public.

While acknowledging the FCCPC’s regulatory role, Onigbanjo contended that the agency’s establishing Act does not empower it to dictate prices or prevent companies from adjusting their rates.

“The issue of price regulation has been litigated before between these same parties, and it was held that the Commission does not have the power to control the prices of goods and services in Nigeria,” Onigbanjo stated.

He further emphasized that even the President of Nigeria—who is legally empowered to regulate prices—has chosen not to do so, instead allowing market forces to determine pricing.

“If the FCCPC does not have the power to control prices, on what basis does it seek to prevent MultiChoice from increasing its prices?” Onigbanjo asked.

The senior lawyer also accused the FCCPC of discrimination, pointing out that many businesses in Nigeria have adjusted their prices due to economic conditions and inflation without interference from the Commission—except in MultiChoice’s case.

He urged the court to rule in favor of MultiChoice and grant all reliefs sought.

FCCPC’s Defense: MultiChoice Abusing Dominant Market Position

Countering MultiChoice’s argument, the FCCPC’s lead counsel, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, urged the court to focus on the core issue: the increase in DStv and GOtv subscription rates.

Agbugu disclosed that the FCCPC had written to MultiChoice on February 25, requesting an explanation after the company announced a price hike set to take effect on March 1. The Commission subsequently summoned MultiChoice to a meeting on February 27, but the company responded that the date was not convenient, proposing March 6 instead.

“In the interim, we advised them to hold off on implementing the price increase,” Agbugu said.

The senior lawyer clarified that the FCCPC was not attempting to regulate or set prices but was exercising its legal mandate to prevent “exorbitant pricing” and investigate potential abuse of a dominant market position.

“The plaintiff (MultiChoice) occupies a dominant position in the television and entertainment industry,” Agbugu argued. “Our concern is not about fixing a specific price, but about whether their price hike is exploitative and unfair to consumers.”

Agbugu also refuted claims of discrimination, stating that MultiChoice’s dominance in the industry made it subject to stricter scrutiny regarding pricing.

“An abuse of dominant market position qualifies them to be singled out for investigation on exorbitant pricing,” he asserted.

The FCCPC’s lawyer urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it undermines the Commission’s mandate to protect consumers.

“This suit should be dismissed, and the plaintiff should be returned to us for proper investigation,” Agbugu concluded.

Court Reserves Judgment

After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Omotosho announced, “Judgment is reserved until May 8.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *