FCCPC and WASPAN Resolve Contempt Dispute; Court Holds Judgment in Regulatory Suit

Wale Igbintade

The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed the contempt proceedings that the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) had filed against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). The court found that the parties had settled the issues that had prompted the contempt action.

Justice Ambrose Lewis‑Allagoa struck out the contempt application after counsel explained that the matters relating to the committal proceedings had been amicably resolved.

The case, identified as FHC/L/CS/760/2026, involves WASPAN’s challenge to the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non‑Traditional Consumer Lending Guidelines, 2025 (DEON Regulations). WASPAN contends that the guidelines unlawfully extend the Commission’s regulatory reach into sectors already overseen by other agencies.

During yesterday’s hearing, Kemi Pinheiro SAN led the Plaintiff’s team, joined by Chukwudi Enebeli SAN, while Olufunke Aboyade SAN represented the FCCPC.

At the start of the session, counsel for the FCCPC informed the court that discussions between the parties had resolved the contempt issues, allowing the court to proceed with the substantive matters of the suit.

Following this development, Pinheiro withdrew the Form 49 contempt proceedings that WASPAN had previously filed, leading the court to strike out the application.

The case then moved to the hearing of the FCCPC’s preliminary objection, which questioned the court’s jurisdiction over the suit.

Aboyade argued that the DEON Regulations had been effective since July 2025 and questioned why WASPAN had waited until now to challenge them. She maintained that the regulations were designed to protect consumers and also pointed out that WASPAN had not complied with statutory pre‑action notice requirements before filing the suit.

Pinheiro countered the objection, asserting that the FCCPC’s factual allegations were unsupported by affidavit evidence. He contended that issues of delay and procedural non‑compliance cannot be raised solely through written submissions without evidential backing. He also argued that constitutional guarantees of access to the courts override technical objections related to pre‑action notices, especially when a litigant alleges imminent regulatory harm.

Pinheiro further criticized the FCCPC for taking inconsistent legal positions: challenging the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously seeking relief from the same court.

On the substantive issues, WASPAN urged the court to invalidate portions of the DEON Regulations, claiming that the FCCPC had exceeded its statutory mandate. The association argued that the Commission was attempting to exercise regulatory powers already vested in the Nigerian Communications Commission and the Central Bank of Nigeria under existing laws. WASPAN also maintained that subsidiary legislation cannot prevail over Acts of the National Assembly.

In response, the FCCPC defended its authority, insisting that its enabling law grants the Commission jurisdiction over any sector where consumer protection concerns arise. Aboyade also noted that defendants in originating summons proceedings are entitled to raise independent legal defenses against the claims brought before the court.

During final submissions, the Plaintiff challenged the documentary exhibits presented by the FCCPC, arguing that the materials lacked evidential credibility and failed to establish a direct link between alleged “loan shark” activities and members of WASPAN.

After hearing both sides, Justice Allagoa adjourned the case to July 20, 2026, for judgment.