By JOMILOJU ABDULRAZAK

On Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State due to a political situation that threatened to escalate and potentially destabilize the entire country. As part of this declaration, he suspended the governor and the legislature for six months. This piece is not about determining who is right or wrong in the political crisis; rather, it raises questions about the constitutionality of suspending elected officials.

Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which the president cited to justify the emergency declaration, does not empower him to suspend elected officials or replace them with unelected individuals. Not a single word in that section grants him such authority.
However, this has happened before. It occurred under former President Obasanjo, who viewed himself as the paramount ruler of Nigeria. At that time, Obasanjo faced criticism from many, including Tinubu, who argued that the constitution did not grant him the authority to suspend governors and state legislatures in states where emergencies were declared.

This brings me to the less explosive issue of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Council (FCCPC), which appears afflicted with the Obasanjo-Tinubu syndrome and has been for several years. About two weeks ago, a Federal High Court in Abuja issued an injunction that prevents the Federal Competition and Consumer FCCPC from taking action against MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, the pay television service provider. This development followed MultiChoice’s announcement of changes to the subscription rates for its DStv and GOtv services. It also highlights concerns regarding the FCCPC’s use of its regulatory authority.

Justice James Omotosho issued an order following an ex-parte motion filed by MultiChoice. In the motion (FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025), Justice Omotosho instructed the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) not to take any administrative actions against MultiChoice. This order came after the commission summoned the company to explain its decision to increase rates starting on March 1. The FCCPC also directed the company’s CEO, John Ugbe, to appear for an investigative hearing on February 27. The commission expressed concerns about frequent price hikes, potential abuse of market leadership, and anti-competitive practices. It warned that if MultiChoice fails to justify these price adjustments or adhere to fair market principles, the company could face sanctions.

In response to these warnings, MultiChoice filed an ex parte motion, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out their threats, as communicated in a letter dated March 3. This motion is pending the hearing and determination of a request for an interlocutory injunction.

It equally 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. MultiChoice, through its lawyers, argued that Nigeria operates a free market economy in which the prices of goods and services are not regulated. The company stated that the FCCPC Act and other relevant laws do not grant the commission the authority to regulate prices or require businesses to seek approval before adjusting the cost of their services.

MultiChoice also mentioned that it communicated its intention to adjust prices to the FCCPC in a letter dated February 21. The FCCPC responded in a letter dated February 27, ordering the broadcaster to suspend its planned price increase. In response to this order, MultiChoice filed a lawsuit on March 3, challenging, among other things, the FCCPC’s power to regulate prices or to suspend its price adjustments.

MultiChoice proceeded to implement the new prices. The FCCPC subsequently threatened to take action against the company if it failed to provide a reasonable justification for ignoring the directive to suspend the price increase despite the suit in court. The similarity between what happened under Obasanjo and what has just happened under Tinubu and what is happening in the FCCPC vs MultiChoice saga is striking. Does the FCCPC Act and other laws relevant to the purpose it serves give it the power to regulate prices or insist on its approval before businesses can adjust rates? Does the law give it the authority to freeze prices or order a reversion to old prices?

In an interview with Premium Times regarding measures to control prices in 2022, Dr. Babatunde Irukera, the immediate past CEO of the FCCPC, clarified that the commission is not responsible for regulating prices, as Nigeria operates a free market economy. He also mentioned that the authority to regulate prices stipulated in the FCCPC Act is limited.
“So we’re not a price regulator. Nigeria is a free market economy with only one limited provision in the FCCPC Act. It even allows the government to get involved in price. That is based on a lot of work, studies, research, a report and a recommendation to the president by the FCCPC for a limited time of controlling prices in a specific sector, based on competition issues, not just increasing prices. Then, that decision when the president accepts the recommendation and adopts it, it will be gazetted. It will only be for a limited period of time. Other than that, we don’t regulate prices,” Irukera told Premium Times.

In the same interview, Irukera also explained that while there are provisions in the FCCPA that prohibit exploitative or reasonable, manifestly unjust contract terms, including price, they still do not give the commission the authority to declare the prices of goods and services as too high or too low.

“No, it doesn’t. What is not reasonable is not a subjective thing. It’s based on objective standards. What is unjust and manifestly so is based on objective standards not arbitrary. And it’s not just a number. That something cost N100,000 doesn’t make it unreasonable or unjust. And our regulatory approach must be methodical, and must be transparent and clear,” added Irukera.

One might question what the FCCPC is working with, considering its threat to sanction MultiChoice and disrupt its operations. It appears to be attempting to exercise authority similar to what Obasanjo did in the past and what Tinubu just did in Rivers State, by using powers it does not possess. Legally, this raises concerns. Morally, the FCCPC also seems to lack a solid foundation. It is pertinent to ask why it is only when MultiChoice adjusts prices that the commission demands suspension of price reviews and/or reversion to old prices? The FCCPC is not alone. It almost always gets the support of the House of Representatives or Senate or at other times, the support of both federal legislative chambers, members of which, like the FCCPC, seem blind, deaf and dumb to the economic conditions driving up prices.

Nigerian Bottling Company, Seven-Up Bottling Company, Nigerian Breweries, Bolt, Uber, pharmaceutical companies and every other business that has adjusted prices, sometimes by as high as 50 or 100 per cent, cite the same reasons. These are inflation, soaring operational costs and forex volatility among others. The FCCPC and the National Assembly seem to believe that every business not named MultiChoice is groaning under the weight of the grim economic indicators while MultiChoice is sandbagged and as such has no reason to increase prices. How do I know this? There is never any attempt at inquisition by the FCCPC or the NASS when other businesses increase prices. School fees, including in Federal Government-owned institutions have risen drastically since 2023. No inquisition. Prices of food and household items are outrunning incomes since the same year when fuel subsidy was halted and the naira floated. Electricity tariff hike followed in 2024. No inquisition.

What makes MultiChoice’s price adjustments so different that they provoke strong reactions from the FCCPC and cause chemical imbalances in the brains of National Assembly members? Why are other producers of goods and services allowed to change their prices as they see fit without having to first seek approval from the FCCPC? I can’t claim to know the answer. What I know is that perhaps, unknowingly, the FCCPC, abetted by the National Assembly, has turned a private business trying to navigate tough economic conditions into a scapegoat. This scrutiny has never been applied to other providers of goods and services. Consequently, it has fostered a public perception that the pay television services offered by MultiChoice are unaffected by the grotesque economic conditions in the country and has convinced many that MultiChoice services are some of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution.
In 2015, two lawyers who claimed to be MultiChoice subscribers and probably believed the service was their inalienable right challenged the company’s price increase that year. Their case was dismissed by a Federal High Court in Lagos. The lawyers, Osasuyi Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji, filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and other DStv subscribers. The court ruled that they were not obligated to use the service.

A similar outcome occurred in September 2022, when Festus Onifade, a lawyer, along with the Coalition of Nigeria Consumers, filed a petition against MultiChoice’s price adjustments before the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in Abuja. In a judgment delivered by a three-member tribunal headed by Thomas Okosun, the tribunal concluded that the authority to regulate prices of goods and services did not rest with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the regulatory agency. Instead, it stated that only the President held that power. The tribunal also noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that MultiChoice had abused its dominant position in the market, emphasizing that their argument lacked merit since Nigeria operates a free market economy.
Last year, Onifade returned to the CCPT concerning price adjustments made by MultiChoice. Ultimately, he decided to withdraw his case. It is uncommon for lawyers, professionals from other fields, or members of the general public to file lawsuits against private companies over pricing issues. For instance, airfares have soared to levels comparable to the altitudes at which planes fly, yet no one has taken legal action. Similarly, the prices of medications continue to rise, but no lawsuits have been filed against pharmaceutical companies or retailers. It appears that only MultiChoice matters. It does so much that the FCCPC is minded to use powers it does not have to regulate prices.