Every few months, Nigerians brace for price hikes from essential service providers. For many, it sparks frustration, with cries for regulatory intervention. But the recent Federal High Court judgment delivered by Honorable Justice James Omotosho does more than address a subscription fee. The judgment draws a defining line in Nigeria’s economic landscape: one that affirms the principles of a liberal market economy.
In what can only be described as a landmark reaffirmation of Nigeria’s free market principles, Honorable Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has delivered a judgment that aligns with the true spirit of economic liberalism. The Court’s decision to uphold MultiChoice’s right to fix prices for its services underlines the core philosophy of a deregulated, investor-friendly economy, where market forces—not regulatory overreach—dictate pricing.1
The Background: FCCPC v. MultiChoice
At the heart of this case lies a long-standing regulatory standoff between the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and MultiChoice Nigeria (the Company). In April 2024, MultiChoice Nigeria informed its customers that it would increase prices for its DStv and GOtv packages. This raised concerns amongst its customers, resulting in regulatory intervention by the FCCPC. The FCCPC attempted to suspend MultiChoice’s planned price increment and compel the Company to revert to its old tariffs.2
But then, like a modern episode of Tales by Moonlight set in the courtroom, the story took a decisive legal turn.
On 3 March 2025, MultiChoice filed a lawsuit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to restrain the FCCPC from enforcing its directive. The Company argued that the Commission lacked legal authority to suspend price increases or compel a private entity to fix its rates. The court granted an interim order on 12 March 2025, preventing the FCCPC from taking any action against MultiChoice pending the hearing of the matter.
Just two days after the suit was filed, on 5 March 2025, the FCCPC launched its own legal offensive. It filed criminal proceedings against MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, John Ugbe, at the Federal High Court in Lagos. The charges included alleged obstruction of an ongoing regulatory inquiry, violation of lawful directives, and contraventions of key provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.
What began as a pricing dispute quickly escalated into a legal showdown, one that would ultimately test the limits of regulatory power within Nigeria’s evolving free market framework.
The Court’s Position: Regulatory Powers Have Limits; Economic Freedom Reaffirmed
In determining the matter before it, Honorable Justice Omotosho considered price regulation and the applicable requirements. Under Nigerian law, only the President has the exclusive power to regulate prices—and even that must be exercised through a gazetted order.4 Consequently, any agency acting without that explicit delegation is acting outside its constitutional bounds.
Accordingly, Honorable Justice Omotosho agreed with MultiChoice, making it unequivocally clear that the FCCPC’s actions, in this instance, were ultra vires; beyond its lawful powers.3
This judgment does not just settle a legal dispute; it protects the economic doctrine upon which a healthy capitalist system is built. Should regulatory bodies be able to arbitrarily control prices in a deregulated sector, it would undermine investor confidence and discourage competition and innovation.
The Free Market in Action: Choice, Competition, and Consequence
Nigeria’s economic framework is built on the understanding that consumers have the right to choose, and businesses have the right to operate within the bounds of the law without undue interference.
MultiChoice, like any other player in the market, is subject to consumer preference. If the prices it sets are too high, the market will respond: Customers may walk away, competition may step in, and equilibrium will be restored. This is the elegance of a free market: it self-regulates. The court’s judgment reaffirms this truth.5
Consumer Protection vs. Market Autonomy: Striking a Balance
Whilst market autonomy is encouraged, this is not to say that consumer protection should be neglected. On the contrary, it is essential for regulators to guard against exploitative practices, false advertising, and anti-competitive conduct. But price setting, especially in a sector not subject to statutory control, is not part of that mandate unless directed by law.6
The Court has sent a clear message: consumer protection cannot become a veil for economic micromanagement by state actors. Agencies must stay within their statutory remit.
Why this Matters for the Nigerian Business Climate
In an economy striving for growth and increased foreign direct investment, the rule of law and regulatory consistency are paramount. Investors, both local and international, need to know that their business decisions won’t be upended by ad hoc directives. They need assurance that the courts will uphold the sanctity of contracts, corporate autonomy, and the principle of free enterprise.
Honorable Justice Omotosho’s judgment provides this assurance.7
A Step Forward for Economic Liberalism and Global Best Practices
First, this judgment should be celebrated by all advocates of a liberal economic order in Nigeria. It protects not just MultiChoice, but every enterprise operating within the law and offering value in a competitive marketplace. It reminds us that regulation must be about fairness and due process, not arbitrary interventions.
Could this be a turning point for Nigeria, where relevant regulatory bodies avoid regulatory overreach, balancing economic freedom with regulation? By investing more resources—limited as they often are—in consumer-rights education, investor safety, and transparency, regulators can help drive a globally competitive business climate that can significantly boost foreign direct investments in the country. Arbitrary directives that have no pillar of support in our laws and regulations defeat the very idea of a free market that regulators, particularly the FCCPC, have a responsibility to protect.
Second, Honorable Justice Omotosho’s judgment aligns Nigeria with international best practices, which is reassuring for business leaders and investors. In most liberal economies, regulators exist to ensure competition, protect consumers from abuse, and sanction anti-competitive practices, not to fix prices. For example, South Africa’s Competition Commission investigates abuses of dominance, not pricing itself. However slow, Nigeria is surely moving in that direction.
For business owners, the judgment reassuringly confirms that Nigeria upholds a system where business decisions, including pricing, are protected from arbitrary interference, thus safeguarding investor confidence.
Conclusion
Honorable Justice Omotosho’s decision is a strong, timely reminder that a free market thrives best when the law is respected, and institutions function within clearly defined boundaries. Regulators should welcome this judgement as a reminder that in carrying out its statutory duties, it must do so without infringing on core market principles. When businesses and investors can expect prevalence of the rule of law and reasonably predict legal outcomes, they invest more boldly, hire more confidently, and innovate more freely. 6, 7 The opposite sends red flags.
As we continue to build a resilient, investor-driven Nigerian economy, judgments such as the one delivered by the learned jurist reinforce the credibility of our markets, and uphold the rule of law. It’s about defining the boundaries of regulatory powers in Nigeria’s evolving economy. It signals a maturing legal environment where economic freedom is not just acknowledged, but also judicially protected. For Nigeria’s journey toward inclusive, sustainable development, this is a welcome development.
Footnotes
- “Justice Omotosho: Nigeria’s Free Market System Allows MultiChoice to Set Its Own Prices”, TheNigeriaLawyer, May 8, 2025. https://thenigerialawyer.com/justice-omotosho-nigerias-free-market-system-allows-multichoice-to-set-its-own-prices/
- “FCCPC tells MultiChoice to suspend price hike pending investigation”, February 27, 2025, Premium Times, https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/777366-fccpc-tells-multichoice-to-suspend-price-hike-pending-investigation.html
- “FCCPC sues MultiChoice over DStv, GOtv price hike”, Premium Times, March 5, 2025, https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/778682-fccpc-sues-multichoice-over-dstv-gotv-price-hike.html
- “Justice Omotosho: The power to fix prices is exclusively that of the President. Any decision taken without such delegation is a nullity”, Section 88(1) Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) of 2018 https://thenigerialawyer.com/justice-omotosho-nigerias-free-market-system-allows-multichoice-to-set-its-own-prices//
- Marshall Hargrave, “How Is Profit Maximized in a Monopolistic Market?”, Investopedia, May 18, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-profit-maximized-monopolistic-market.asp
- “FCCPC Directs MultiChoice to Maintain Current Prices Pending Investigation”, FCCPC, February 27, 2025, https://fccpc.gov.ng/fccpc-directs-multichoice-to-maintain-current-prices-pending-investigation/
- “Nigeria seeks managers for planned $10 billion diaspora fund”, Reuters, April 26, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigeria-seeks-managers-planned-10-billion-diaspora-fund-2024-04-26/