There is, it seems, no limit to the extent the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, FCCPC, is prepared to go in its dance of shame with MultiChoice Nigeria, owners of DStv and GOtv. This time, it is wheedling the legally unwary by spinning an otherwise straightforward court ruling to wit: While the FCCPC has investigative powers under its establishing Act, it lacks the authority to fix or suspend prices unless specifically delegated by the President through a gazette.

It was an unambiguous, explicit, clear-cut and unequivocal judgement.

Of course, no such presidential instrument as required by law was presented to the court. And there couldn’t have been any because President Bola Tinubu was emphatic in disavowing price control during his first media chat on December 23, 2024. Asked if his government would consider travelling the “price control” route in order to mitigate the prevailing cost-of-living crunch, his answer was emphatic: “I don’t believe in price control. We just continue to supply the market, we work hard to supply the market.”

Justice James Omotoso of the Federal High Court, Abuja echoed the same sentiment last Thursday when he ruled that the FCCPC lacks the power to interfere in the pricing decisions of private companies in a free market economy. He held that under Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, only the President can regulate prices.

But in affirming MultiChoice’s right to set prices for its goods and services, Justice Omotoso also dismissed the company’s suit against the regulator’s intervention in its recent subscription price hike, a fact that FCCPC is latching on in its dance of shame, spinning the judgement.

Justice Omotoso ruled that MultiChoice’s suit constituted an abuse of court process as a similar case was pending in Lagos, stressing that the firm should have pursued its arguments there. The fact that it failed to do so, the court held, rendered the filing in Abuja inappropriate. Simply put, Justice Omotoso struck out MultiChoice’s suit against the FCCPC only on procedural grounds.

What the Judge didn’t say, however, is the fact that not only is a similar proceeding pending in a Lagos court, indeed, as far back as 2015, two lawyers – Osasuyi Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji – approached a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to challenge MultiChoice’s right to increase prices and lost, with the court ruling that they were not obliged to use MultiChoice’s services.

That judgement had not been vacated when the FCCPC, in its desperation to ratchet up the pressure, sued MultiChoice and its Managing Director, John Ugbe, in March for allegedly 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. But the Judge recalled that in 2022, the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, ruled that MultiChoice, a luxury, non-essential commodity provider, has a right to increase its prices while Nigerians have a choice to opt for other Pay TV platforms.

It is this clear-cut ruling that FCCPC is spinning, orchestrating media headlines such as, “Subscription Hike: FCCPC Floors MultiChoice” and “Court affirms Commission’s Power to Investigate Exploitation.” That is a deliberate misinterpretation of the judgement designed to deceive.

Now, what is the issue?

Citing inclement economic climate and surging operational costs, MultiChoice, on March 1, 2025, implemented a less than 25 per cent subscription price hike, which is far less than the inflationary pressures exacerbated by sundry volatilities in the economy. Yet, it is enough to put it in FCCPC’s crosshairs.

To be sure, Nigerians, facing significant economic challenges, are barely surviving and any tariff hike makes it worse. But businesses are not faring any better. Firms that hitherto posted robust balance sheets year-on-year are going bust, literally. Some that could no longer stand the heat fled. In 2023 alone, industry giants, including GSK, Sanofi-Aventis Nigeria Ltd, Unilever Nigeria Plc., Procter & Gamble Nigeria, and Bolt Food, bolted. A company facing higher costs must either pass some of them to consumers or degrade its services or go under. 

Standing between the devil and the deep blue sea, businesses that have decided to weather the storm rather than flee are hiking tariffs to remain afloat. MultiChoice is one of them. But it is not the only one. In January, the Nigerian Communications Commission, NCC, approved a 50 per cent tariff increase for telecommunications operators in Nigeria in order to address rising operational costs and ensure sustainability.

Long before those operators hitched a ride on the price hike wagon, many other companies were already on board with price adjustments in excess of 100 per cent. For instance, in 2024, Nigerian Breweries hiked prices of its products thrice. In 2023, StarTimes raised its rates twice. The first was by 33 per cent in May, while the second was by another 25 per cent in August. Streaming giants, Netflix, also announced a review of its prices with effect from April 1, 2024. Earlier, International Breweries, citing escalating cost of doing business, increased prices across its product portfolio. Another brewing giant, Guinness Nigeria Plc., also announced a new price regime.

Curiously, while these other organisations are given a free pass even with higher percentage hikes, MultiChoice is always singled out for sanction. So, why is it a crime for MultiChoice to charge market-reflective rates for its services when it is not for others?

If protecting consumers is truly FCCPC’s goal, then its enforcement must be consistent and fair. Singling out one player while turning a blind eye to others undermines the very principle of consumer protection. Worse, it erodes trust in the Commission. As Justice Omotosho rightly pointed out, not only is MultiChoice’s right to a fair hearing serially savaged, the Commission’s unholy antics smacks of selective enforcement.

For the avoidance of doubt, Justice Omotoso, in his well-considered judgement, raised many fundamental issues.

The court held, and rightly so, that a pay-tv is not an essential service and consumers can choose to subscribe or not or even switch providers by using free-to-air channels or stream on YouTube. Thus, no one is trapped because the market offers alternatives.

Justice Omotosho equally dismissed FCCPC’s claim that MultiChoice held a dominant market position, calling the argument untenable. For him, Nigeria being a free market economy means service providers such as MultiChoice have the right to set their prices.

More importantly, the Judge harped on a very fundamental issue, which tragically seems to be lost on FCCPC: attempts to fix prices by regulatory bodies could scare off investors and harm an already struggling economy.

MultiChoice has made significant contributions to Nigeria’s economy. From its humble beginnings of about 30 employees, the company presently sustains over 30,000 Nigerian jobs, directly and indirectly. While other companies are closing shop, exiting or downsizing, MultiChoice is still creating value – investing, hiring and stabilising the fragile economies of most families.

So, at a time of historic unemployment, does it make sense to hound one of the few remaining businesses that are standing by the country and its longsuffering people? Besides, more than any other business – public or private – MultiChoice plays a larger-than-life role in promoting the country’s cultures and projecting its soft power.

To be sure, the antagonism and campaign of calumny against MultiChoice is tantamount to success in a difficult business environment becoming a burden? MultiChoice is not a monopoly. It is just the most resilient competitor in a tough market. Not only that, those who talk about monopoly and absence of choice conveniently ignore the fact that the company offers tiered packages from N4,400 to N44,500, which means that there is a bouquet for every pocket and no one is forced to buy what he cannot afford.

It is disingenuous to equate success to monopoly. Truth be told, by sheer dint of hard work, MultiChoice became the dominant actor in the industry because over the years, rather than quitting, it stayed put to build infrastructure, content pipelines, measures that ultimately engendered trust and patronage. Any other company that does same will get the same result. Market dominance is earned, not gifted.

What Justice Omotoso’s ruling exposes is FCCPC’s regulatory overreach in its dealings with MultiChoice with an unambiguous message: it is high time this dance of shame stopped. MultiChoice should be allowed to do its business within the ambit of the law without let or hindrance.