TheNewsGuru

Tag: FCCPC

  • Tinubu appoints commissioners for FCCPC

    Tinubu appoints commissioners for FCCPC

    President Bola Tinubu has nominated Louis Odion as Executive Commissioner, Operations, and Ummasalma Rabiu as Executive Commissioner (Corporate Services) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

    ‎The Presidential Spokesperson, Mr Bayo Onanuga, announced the appointment in a statement issued on Wednesday in Abuja.

    ‎Onanuga noted that the nominations are subject to confirmation by the Senate in accordance with the provisions of the FCCPC Act, 2018.

    ‎Odion from Edo is a veteran journalist and former Senior Technical Assistant to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo on Media. Before that, he was Commissioner for Information in Edo State.

    ‎Odion holds two Master’s degrees, one in Modern War Studies from the University of Buckingham, United Kingdom, and the other in International Law and Diplomacy from the University of Lagos.

    ‎Ummasalma, 35, from Kano State, founded the Usir Foundation, a non-profit organisation that empowers underprivileged individuals and communities through education, skills development, and humanitarian initiatives.

    ‎She has a degree in Business Administration. She is a grassroots politician committed to championing inclusive governance, and promoting youth and women’s political participation.

  • FCCPC seals France, Belgium, Italy visa centres in Abuja

    FCCPC seals France, Belgium, Italy visa centres in Abuja

    The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC,), has sealed off France, Belgium and Italy visa centres located at the Mukhtar El-Yakub House, Central Business District, Abuja.

    The office was sealed with the combined efforts of operatives from the FCCPC, Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps as staff of the centre resisted the sealing.

    Sealing off the centre on Thursday, Mrs Boladale Adeyinka, the Director, Surveillance and Investigations Department of FCCPC, said the move was due to failure of the centre to receive a letter of the Commission to investigate a consumer complaint.

    Adeyinka said the centre was also sealed due to obstruction of investigation or inquiry and conducting services considered upon reasonable suspicion to be inimical to consumers’ welfare.

    She mandated the company to apper before the Commission on June 20, to testify, make depositions and provide evidence in relation to failure to receive a letter of the Commission to investigate a complaint and obstruction of investigation or inquiry.

    ”This is an enforcement operation against TLS. As you are aware, they provide visa support services to Nigerian consumers.

    ”On the 25th of March 2025, based on consumer complaint, a letter was served on them to address the consumer complaint as is the process of amicable resolution of consumer complaints at the commission.

    ”The officers of TLS, rather than receive the consumer complaint, proceeded to assault our officers who were conducting the lawful duty of protecting and implementing the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA).

    ”Upon receipt of that report, the commission directed that they should be summoned (1:25) to appear before the commission pursuant to Section 33 of the FCCPA.

    ”Rather than receive the summons of the commission, officers of TLS again on June 17, proceeded not only to assault our officers but also assaulted uniformed officers of the police force who were providing lawful security for the operations of the commission.

    ”Section 33 stipulates that any person who without sufficient cause fails or refuses to appear before the commission in compliance with a summons commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding #20 million or both fine and imprisonment,” she said.

    Adeyinka directed that the Company would be liable for all losses and expenses encountered by visa applicants as a result of the enforcement.

    However, the Management of the Company  refused to comment on the matter. The centre is being managed by TLS Contact, a Teleperformance Company.

  • FCCPC summons Air Peace

    FCCPC summons Air Peace

    The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has summoned the management of Air Peace Limited following myriad of consumer complaints from across the country regarding non-refund of ticket fares.

    A statement by Mr Ondaje Ijagwu, Director, Corporate Affairs of the Commission in Abuja on Monday, said the airline had failed to refund its customers even in instances where it cancelled its flight operations.

    He said the airline’s actions potentially contravened Sections 130(1)(a) and (b), and 130(2)(b) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.

    Ijagwu said the FCCPA guaranteed consumers the right to timely refunds where advance bookings, reservations, or orders were unfulfilled due to service-provider’s failure.

    The director said the summon dated June 13, would require Air Peace to appear before the Commission’s headquarters.

    ”This provision enshrines the principle of fair dealing and safeguards consumers against unfair, unjust, or unreasonable practices by service-providers.

    ”In a formal summons dated June 13, 2025, the Commission, invoking Sections 32 and 33 of the FCCPA 2018, requires Air Peace to appear before the Commission at its Abuja Headquarters on June 23.

    ”Specifically, Section 33(3) of the FCCPA mandates compliance and failure attracts severe sanctions including fines or imprisonment.

    ”The airline is further directed to produce documentary evidence including complaint log for refunds over the past twelve (12) months.

    ”Others are  total records of processed refunds to date, list of cancelled flights on all routes within the past twelve (12) months, and remedial actions taken to mitigate consumer hardship resulting from cancelled flights,” he said.

    Ijagwu said the FCCPC had in 2024, commenced inquiries into separate allegations of exploitative ticket pricing, including substantial price hikes for advance bookings on certain domestic routes by Air Peace.

    He said the airline in response to the inquiry, instituted legal proceedings seeking to restrain the Commission from continuing its inquiry.

    The director said the summon was a different matter from the inquiry.

  • Multichoice implements tariffs hike for DStv, GOtv after FHC ruling

    Multichoice implements tariffs hike for DStv, GOtv after FHC ruling

    After the May 8, 2025 ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Multichoice has implemented tariffs hike for DStv and GOtv.

    Recall that Multichoice in February notified its customers of price increment across its subscription packages on both DStv and GOtv.

    According to the company, price review will hike the DStv Compact bouquet from N15,700 to N19,000, representing a 25% increase.

    The Compact Plus package will also increase from N25,000 to N30,000, which is a 20% increment.

    For the highest package, DStv Premium, the company said the subscription price will go up from N37,000 to N44,500, which also represents a 20% increment.

    In the notice sent to its customers, the company said the new price regime was to take effect from March 1, 2025.

    However, a summons by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and a subsequent suit filed by MultiChoice at the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja put the tariffs hike on hold.

    Meanwhile, a recent check by TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) indicates that Multichoice has now implemented the tariffs hike for DStv and GOtv.

    As of May 9 after the FHC ruling, DStv confam package was N11,000.00. However, after implementing the tariffs hike, DStv confam has skyrocketed to N14,048.00.

    Throwback: FCCPC lacks power to interfere in decisions of private companies to fix prices – FHC rules

    Although the Abuja Federal High Court dismissed the suit filed by Multichoice, the court held that FCCPC lacked the power to interfere in the decisions of private companies to fix prices.

    The Federal High Court on May 8 dismissed the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited seeking to stop FCCPC from taking administrative action against it.

    Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the suit was an abuse of court process having been filed after a similar suit was filed on the issue by a lawyer, Festus Onifade, with Multichoice and FCCPC as parties in the suit.

    MultiChoice, the operator of DStv and Gotv increased the subscription rates on its packages against an invitation by FCCPC to give explanation on why the company wanted to effect the price hike.

    Justice Omotosho, on March 12, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-Tv company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.

    The judge gave the order after an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025 and moved by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, to challenge FCCPC’s alleged threat.

    The FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.

    The commission directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on February 27, raising concerns over frequent price hikes, potential market dominance abuse and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry.

    The FCCPC also issued a stern warning, stating that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.

    However in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team led by Moyosore Onigbanjo, the company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threat against it, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.

    It also sought an order restraining the commission and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting its business activities, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.

    Justice Omotosho on March 27 then fixed May 8 for judgement after counsel for the MultiChoice, Onigbanjo and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.

    Delivering the judgement, the judge observed that an earlier suit filed by Onifade before the same Federal High Court in Abuja, and in which Multichoice is a party, was still pending before the company decided to file the instant suit.

    The judge said Multichoice could ventilate the issues in the suit filed by Onifade simply filing a counter claim rather than filing a separate suit.

    “With respect to issue two, abuse of court process refers to when a party misuses a court process for the purpose of harassing or annoying his opponent.

    “It is to file multiple processes on the same issues and between the same parties,” he said, citing previous court cases.

    According to the judge, the abuse lies in the multiplicity and the manner or evidence of the right of the parties rather than the exercise of the right per se.

    Citing previous case, Justice Omotosho held that “the employment of judicial process is generally regarded as abuse of judicial process where a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient administration of justice.”

    The judge said MultiChoice also admitted to the existence of a similar suit In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of its further affidavit.

    “Now in that suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Mr. Festus Onifade and Multichoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the plaintiff there had filed a suit challenging the right of Multichoice to increase its subscription price as same is unfair.

    “The plaintiff therefore sought among others a declaration that Multichoice suspends its impending price increase for being in breach of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.

    “This instant suit was filed by Multichoice challenging the powers of the defendant (FCCPC) to regulate its subscription prices.

    “The origin of both suits is from a complaint by the said Mr Festus Onifade about the alleged unfair increase proposed by Multichoice Nigeria Limited.

    “It is therefore clear as day that weighing both suits, especially the parties and reliefs sought, the suits are similar and can be contested in one of the suits and not in different actions,” he said.

    He further held that MultiChoice was aware of the suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 filed by Onifade on February 27, “which means it was filed before this instant suit.”

    “To my mind, filing this instant suit even though the defendant in that suit is now the plaintiff is an abuse of court and an unnecessary and vexatious duplicity of actions.

    “Quite dearly, these issues can be dealt with in that pending suit without the need to file a fresh surt.

    “Relying on the above decisions, I therefore hold that the plaintiff in this suit could have ventilated its grievance in the other pending suit without the need to file a fresh suit.

    “Allowing this suit to go on to conclusion will lead to a likely conflict of decisions arising from judgments in this court and in the other suit.

    “The long and short of what this court is trying to say is that this instant suit is an abuse of court process on grounds of multiplicity of actions.

    “Thus this suit must be dismissed for being an abuse of court process,” the judge ruled.

    The judge then proceeded to decline jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.

    However, Justice Omotosho went ahead to determine the case on its merit and held that since Nigeria runs a free market economy, the FCCPC lacked the power to interfere in the decisions of private companies to fix their prices.

    The judge held that  under Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, it is only the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that can regulate prices in a regulated industry and for essential goods, not the kind of services being rendered by the Multichoice where consumers have choices.

    The judge  held that the FCCPC had no business querying how companies fix their prices in a free market economy.

    Meanwhile, the earlier suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 and filed by Onifade before the Federal High Court in Abuja, in which Multichoice and FCCPC are parties, is still pending and undecided.

  • Alleged breach of Act: MTN CEO, others evading prosecution – FCCPC

    Alleged breach of Act: MTN CEO, others evading prosecution – FCCPC

    The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Mr Karl Toriola, the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD/CEO) of MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, and others were evading service of court documents on them.

    FCCPC, through its lawyer, Nsitem Chizenum, told Justice Hauwa Yilwa upon resumed hearing of the matter on Wednesday.

    FCCPC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/354/2024, dragged the MTN Nigeria Communications Plc; Toriola; Tobechukwu Okigbo, MTN’s Chief Corporate Services and Sustainability Officer, and Ikenna Ikeme, General Manager, Regulatory Affairs of MTN, to court  as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

    They were preferred with two counts in the charge, dated July 19, 2024, and filed July 22, 2024 by a team of lawyers led by Akoji Achimugu.

    The defendants would be arraigned over alleged failure to produce documents and information required by the commission in compliance with a lawful summons contrary to the FCCPC Act.

    Earlier the matter was fixed for May 28 for the defendants to take their plea. When the matter was called on Wednesday, none of the defendants was in court.

    The lawyer who appeared for FCCPC, Chizenum, told the judge that it was obvious that the defendants were not in court.

    He said on the last adjourned date, the court hinted that it was the duty of the prosecution to bring the defendants to court, hence, efforts were made to produce them in court today.

    “We have made several efforts and we equally used the bailiff of this court to serve them but it seems they were evading service my lord,” he said.

    The lawyer also told the court that the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) had been involved and that their application was being processed by the NPF with a view to produce the defendants in court.

    “In the circumstance, we ask for an adjournment to enable us bring the defendants for arraignment my lord,” he said.

    Justice Yilwa subsequently adjourned the until Sept. 25 for arraignment.

    In count one, the MTN Nigeria Communications PLC, Toriola, Okigbo and Ikeme were alleged to have on or about June 18, 2024 did without sufficient cause failed to produce documents and or information which they were required to produce, “in compliance with a lawful Summons and Request to Produce dated May 17, 2024.”

    The commission alleged that the compliance with same summon was further extended by a letter dated June 5, 2024 and they thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.

    In count two, the defendants were alleged to have “on or about June 18, 2024, in furtherance, and continuation of extant refusal to produce documents and supply information required by the commission under statutory notice and demand, did impede and obstruct the FCCPC’s ongoing limited initial inquiry and possible prospective investigation by refusing to produce and supply documents and or information” requested.

    The offence is said to be contrary to Section 111 (1) of the FCCP Act, 2018, and punishable under Section 111 (2) of the same act.

    The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) had, in another matter, filed charge against MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd; its CEO, Toriola; MTN Senior Executive Officer, Nkeakam Abhulimen; Fun Mobile Ltd, a telecommunications service provider; and Yahaya Maibe, its CEO.

    The NCC, in the three-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/111/2024 presently before Justice Inyang Ekwo of a sister court, filed it on March 20, 2024.

    The prosecution had alleged that the defendants, between 2010 and 2017, “offered for sale, sold and traded for business, infringed musical works of Maleke Moye, an artiste, without his consent and authorisation.”

    The commission alleged that the defendants used Maleke’s musical works and sound recordings with subsisting copyright, known as “caller ring back tunes” without the authorisation of the artiste, among others.

    The copyright commission said the alleged offence is punishable under Section 20 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, Cap. C28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

    Justice Ekwo had, on Feb. 25, adjourned the matter until May 15 for report, following the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF)’s interest to take over the case.

    However, the matter could not proceed on May 15 because the court did not sit.

  • FCCPC can serve Nigerians better without MultiChoice – By Ikeddy Isiguzo

    FCCPC can serve Nigerians better without MultiChoice – By Ikeddy Isiguzo

    By Ikeddy Isiguzo

    A CONCERNING issue to Nigerians – the arbitrary increase of prices of essential goods and services – does not interest the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, FCCPC, which is engaged in a ceaseless legal tussle with MultiChoice, which provides digital television signals, a non-essential service.

    FCCPC sees something to regulate in MultiChoice’s business. FCCPC cannot miss an opportunity to oversight MultiChoice though it ignores how other businesses in the sector operate. The intentionality is obvious.

    Once MultiChoice announces a proposed increase, FCCPC, mostly silent in other areas that affect our lives would wake up quickly to issue one threat or the other before returning to its disturbed slumber.

    Momentary wakefulness marks FCCPC’s regulatory activities steeped in photo opportunities and over ventilation of issues the courts have settled. Exactly what does FCCPC regulate?

    The partiality to MultiChoice is too evident that it would appear that FCCPC benefits from the irritations it has become. How does Nigeria benefit from a government agencies demonisation of an organisation that turns in billions into government coffers as taxes, employs thousands of Nigerians and provides services its willing clients patronise?

    On 8 May 2025 FCCPC went into over drive in its celebration of a minute point in its case with MultiChoice. What was there to make a dance of as FCCPC did?

    Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court Abuja in dismissing a suit MultiChoice Nigeria filed, challenging FCCPC’s intervention in its recent subscription price hike ruled that the suit was an abuse of court process as similar proceedings were going on in Lagos State.

    Justice Omotoso’s other pronouncements:

    .While FCCPC has investigative powers under its establishing Act, it lacks the authority to fix or suspend prices unless the President directs it through a gazetted instrument.

    .No such delegation was presented to the court.

    .Nigeria operates a free market system, and service providers like MultiChoice retain the right to set their prices, with consumers free to accept or reject them.

    .FCCPC’s actions, including directing MultiChoice to suspend its price increase, breached the company’s right to fair hearing and appeared selectively targeted.

    .FCCPC’s claim that MultiChoice held a dominant market position, calling the argument untenable.

    .Use of services like those provided by MultiChoice is discretionary and not essential, as Nigerians can do without it.

    .Warned that attempts to fix prices by regulatory bodies could scare off investors and harm the economy.

    .FCCPC may investigate market practices, it cannot impose price controls without proper legal backing.

    .While FCCPC is an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria, it must act within its powers in line with relevant laws.

    .FCCPC has power to declare market dominance and discriminatory prices against an entity; it must make pronouncement after carrying out investigation against such company.

    .From the fact before the court, investigation had yet to begin before the FCCPC issued the suspension directive to the MultiChoice.

    .FCCPC acted beyond its power by the directive it issued against MultiChoice price increase.

    .Nigeria operates a free market economy, where only the President of Nigeria has the exclusive powers to regulate prices.

    FCCPC only has an advisory role on the issue of price fixing.

    .Powers of the President to regulate prices cannot be exercised by any other person or agency or body.

    .If the President decides to fix prices, it must cover an entire industry and not just a single player.

    .FCCPC has powers to make rules in respect of anti-competition, anti-consumer protection, among others, except the issue of fixing prices.

    In 2022, the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, had ruled that MultiChoice had the right to increase its price while Nigerians had a choice to opt for other pay TV platforms.

    .FCCPC appears to be targeting MultiChoice unfairly while ignoring the pricing of other pay TVs and online TVs like YouTube in Nigeria.

    Let FCCPC look up a bit and occupied itself with the activities of government agencies like the Joint Tax Board which has just announced an increase in vehicle number plates and driver’s licences.

    Here are some details:

    Standard private and commercial number plates formerly ₦18,750, now ₦30,000.

    Fancy number plates move from ₦200,000 to ₦400,000.

    Motorcycle number plates from ₦5,000 to ₦12,000.

    Articulated number plates will be ₦90,000, from ₦30,000.

    Out-of-series number plates from ₦50,000 to ₦150,000.

    These increases and other vehicle-rated taxes will be effected on 8 June 2025, after a public notice of less than 30 days.

    And they are coming barely six months after the same JTB jacked up prices of its in December 2024. By February 2024, licences cost between N6,000 and N10,000.

    The public had no alternative than to pay the new prices. The licences are essential government’s monopoly and their use is compulsory. Nobody is concerned whether their users can afford them.

    Why the increase in the prices of the licences and vehicle number plates? The Joint Tax Board, which issues the routine orders, said, “The new rates would provide enhanced security features, improving identification processes for both drivers and vehicles across the country”. JTB gave the same excuse in November 2024.

    FCCPC is dumb. A possibility is that FCCPC is not aware of the price increase, “adjustments”, as JTB called them. After all, FCCPC’s time is dedicated to regulating MultiChoice.

    While government agencies can increase prices when and how they like, FCCPC would not allow MultiChoice adjust prices for a service that is not essential, which has alternatives, within the bouquets that MultiChoice or its competitors provide.

    Digital television is not compulsory like the vehicle licences that will affect lives of millions of Nigerians, directly and indirectly. Transporters will pass the costs to consumers of their services. Foods, already very expensive, and other goods that depend on road transportation will witness a hike on their prices.

    Vehicle owners would be wise enough to save for the next “adjustment” in price of licences once JTB decides to given them “enhanced security features”. It may not be many months down the way.

    These tormenting increases in charges ranging from water rates, electricity tariffs, bills (even in government hospitals and schools) deserve FCCPC’s intervention.

    The National Identity Management Commission hiked date of birthday corrections fee to N28,574 from N16,340.

    All these charges affect more millions of Nigerians. They are essential services without alternatives.

    FCCPC should leave MultiChoice and its clients to make their decisions. And Justice Omotosho noted FCCPC’s fixation with MultiChoice.

    Will FCCPC listen to Justice Omotosho? Or spare some thoughts for hapless Nigerians who government monopolies are crushing?

    FCCPC still has a chance to be relevant in the lives of Nigeria by advising government and its agencies to care about the impact of price increases of compulsory services that only government provides on ordinary Nigerians.

    Finally…

    MORE profound investigation is required to know what happened with the 2025 UTME that witnessed mass low performance, swiftly blamed on “human error”. There may be need to cancel the entire exams or give all candidates who want to re-write the opportunity to do so. One candidate in Lagos reportedly committed suicide over the low marks JAMB awarded her – another avoidable death.

    ISIGUZO is a major commentator on minor issues

  • FCCPC raids popular market over rebagged, underweight rice

    FCCPC raids popular market over rebagged, underweight rice

    The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), has raided and sealed some shops at Utako market for selling re-bagged and under-weight bags of rice.

    Sealing the shops in Abuja on Tuesday, Mrs Boladale Adeyinka, the Director, Surveillance and Investigations Department of FCCPC, said the raid followed an intelligence gathered by the Commission.

    She said the intelligence showed that traders in the market were re-bagging local rice in foreign rice bags and selling them at exorbitant prices as imported rice.

    Adeyinka described the move as exploitative, and against consumer economic interests.

    She said the products would be confiscated and the Commission would follow the trail to fish out the producers and branders of the rice.

    ”We are carrying out this operation to confirm and validate the intelligence that local rice, our own rice is being packaged in foreign brands and sold as foreign rice.

    ”And because the appetite of Nigerians are for foreign brands which are no longer in the market, the market cartels are now going about re-bagging the local rice and selling them as foreign rice.

    ”That is exploitative and against consumer economic interests.

    ”As a matter of fact, for Mama Gold, as far as 2015, they stopped all their export.

    ”This is 2025 and yet, like you heard from the testimony of the trader, he is aware that they don’t sell those sizes anymore.

    ”So that is why we are here,” she said.

    Adeyinka said the traders found culpable would face administrative penalties and fines under the FCCP Act.

    ”They will follow due process based on the infractions,” she said.

    Adeyinka warned consumers of foreign rice to buy from importers or distributors to ensure the quality of the product.

    Some of the traders who their shops were sealed feigned ignorance of the re-bagging of the products.

    Mr Emmanuel Nneji, one of the traders, said he was not aware that Stallion company had stopped production of the rice in a long while.

    According to Nneji, he buys from his suppliers in Kaduna and Kano States.

    ”If there had been a publication that says that this particular product is no more in the market, I would not have bought it, because I do not want to buy goods and at the end of everything, I will lose it.

    ”So what am begging is that even if they say I should make sure that I return it back, that tomorrow they are coming, and they don’t want to find it, I will do it,” he said.

    Another trader who refused to mention his name, said he usually bought Stallion rebagged rice due to its increasing demand in the market.

    ”I buy the rice because people ask of it a lot but I still sell the 10kg for N18,000 and not the normal N25,000 to N28,000 which the foreign brand is sold,” he said.

    Mr Alex Igwemma, the Secretary, Utako Market Traders Association, frowned at the unannounced visit of the Commission to the market without prior notice to the market officials

    Igwemma who said that those in the business ought to have known that the products had not been in existence, appealed to traders in the market to ensure they purchase quality products for sale in the market.

    NAN reports that no fewer than five wholesale shops filled with bags of rice were sealed by the Commission and the owners invited to FCCPC for further investigations.

  • Court stops FCCPC from sanctioning MultiChoice over tariff hike

    Court stops FCCPC from sanctioning MultiChoice over tariff hike

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, restrained the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from sanctioning MultiChoice Nigeria Limited following its recent increase in the DStv and GOtv subscription rates.

    Justice James Omotosho gave the order after an ex-parte motion moved by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, counsel to MultiChoice.

    Justice Omotosho, in the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, ordered FCCPC not to take “any administrative steps” against the pay-Tv company.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.

    The commission directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on Feb. 27, raising concerns over frequent price hikes, potential market dominance abuse and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry.

    The FCCPC also issued a stern warning, stating that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.

    However in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team led by Onigbanjo, the company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threat against it, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.

    It also sought an order restraining the commission and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting its business activities, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.

    “An order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC, its agents, servants, or privies from sanctioning or penalising MultiChoice (the applicant) in any manner whatsoever in relation to its price increase pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.”  .

    Onibanjo, in his grounds of argument, submitted that Nigeria operates a free-market economy where prices of goods and services are not regulated.

    He argued that the FCCPC Act and other enabling laws do not grant the commission the authority to regulate prices or require businesses to seek approval before adjusting the cost of their services.

    He added that MultiChoice had communicated its intention to increase prices via a letter dated Feb 21.

    He said that  the FCCPC, however, in a letter dated Feb. 27, ordered the pay-TV company to suspend its planned price increment.

    The lawyer said following the development, the company filed a suit on March 3, challenging, among other things, the FCCPC’s power to regulate prices or suspend its price adjustment.

    He said MultiChoice, after filing the suit, proceeded with the planned price increase.

    He said despite the pending suit, the FCCPC threatened to prosecute MultiChoice via a letter dated March 3 if it failed to provide reasonable justification for disregarding the directive to suspend the price increment.

    In an affidavit deposed to by Gozie Onumonu, Head of Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations at MultiChoice, the company argued that its subscription rates in Nigeria are the lowest among all the countries where it operates.

    “For instance, the cost of the Premium package in Nigeria is equivalent to $29.81, while the same package costs $85.11 in Kenya,” Onumonu said.

    The officer maintained that MultiChoice had the legal right to operate its business, including adjusting its prices when necessary.

    When the matter was called on Wednesday, Onigbanjo moved the motion, praying the court to grant their reliefs.

    The judge, after hearing the lawyer’s application, restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against MultiChoice pending the determination of the case.

    The judge equally ordered an accelerated hearing on the matter and adjourned the matter until March 27 for hearing.

  • FCCPC takes action against DStv, GOtv for increasing subscription price

    FCCPC takes action against DStv, GOtv for increasing subscription price

    The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) have filed a legal action against Multichoice, the company behind DStv and GOtv for disregarding its order against increasing subscription prices.

    TheNewsGuru reported that MultiChoice, despite orders from FCCPC to halt increasing subscription price, in an official statement last weekend, increased its rates.

    Reacting, the Commission’s Director of Corporate Affairs, Ondaje Ijagwu, in a statement on Wednesday said that MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, John Ugbe, were sued for violating regulatory directives, obstructing an ongoing inquiry and engaging in conduct deemed violations of the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.

    “MultiChoice Nigeria had been expressly directed by the FCCPC on February 27, 2025 to maintain its current pricing structure for DStv and GOtv pending the conclusion of an examination of its proposed price hike.

    “However, despite this directive, the company proceeded with its price increase on March 1, 2025, in clear defiance of the Commission’s directive,” he said.

    He added that the Pay Tv actions were a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine regulatory authority, disrupt market fairness, and deny Nigerian consumers the protection afforded under the law.

    “By disregarding the FCCPC’s directive and implementing the price hike before appearing before the Commission’s investigative hearing on March 6, 2025, MultiChoice has not only flouted regulatory processes but also demonstrated a pattern of conduct that undermines consumer rights and fair competition,” he stated.

  • MTN, top executives dragged to Abuja court

    MTN, top executives dragged to Abuja court

    The Federal Government has filed a legal action at the Federal High Court in Abuja against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc and three of its senior officials for allegedly withholding information requested by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

    Among those charged alongside MTN in the criminal proceedings are the company’s Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Karl Toriola; Chief Corporate Services Officer, Tobechukwu Okigbo; and General Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Ikenna Ikeme.

    The telecom giant and its executives, in the two-count charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/354/2024,  allegedly failed to comply with a lawful request to produce documents, which constitutes an offence under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), 2018.

    The charge, filed by the FCCPC on behalf of the Federal Government, states: “That you, MTN Nigeria Communications PLC, Mr. Karl Olutokun Toriola (M), Mr. Tobechukwu Okigbo (M) and Mr. Ikenna Ikeme (M) on or about the 18th day of June, 2024, at Plot 2784, Shehu Shagari Way, Maitama, Abuja, without sufficient cause, failed to produce documents and/or information which you were required to produce, in compliance with a lawful summons and request to produce, dated May 17, 2024, which compliance with same was further extended by a letter dated June 5, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.”

    “That you, MTN Nigeria Communications PLC, Mr. Karl Olutokun Toriola (M), Mr. Tobechukwu Okigbo (M) and Mr. Ikenna Ikeme (M) on or about the 18th day of June, 2024, at Plot 2784, Shehu Shagari Way, Maitama, Abuja, in furtherance, and continuation of extant refusal to produce documents and supply information required by the commission (FCCPC) under statutory notice and demand did impede and obstruct the FCCPC’s ongoing limited initial inquiry and possible prospective investigation by refusing to produce and supply documents and/or information in compliance with a lawful summons and request to produce, dated May 17, 2024, which compliance with same was further extended by a letter dated June 5, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 111 (1) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018, and punishable under Section 111 (2) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.”

    When the case came up before Justice H.J. Yilwa on Monday, the defendants were absent. In response, the FCCPC’s legal representative, Chizenum Nsitem, informed the court that although the case had been scheduled for the arraignment of the defendants, he had just been briefed and needed time to review the case file.

    Justice Yilwa subsequently adjourned the matter to May 28 for arraignment.