Court Defers Verdict in Challenge Over FCCPC Digital Lending Framework

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has deferred its verdict in a lawsuit initiated by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN), which contests the lawfulness of the digital lending rules introduced by the consumer protection watchdog.

Justice A. L. Allagoa slated the judgment for 20 July 2026, after legal representatives for both sides adopted their final written submissions and concluded their oral arguments in the case recorded under suit number FHC/L/CS/760/2026. The courtroom battle has centered extensively on the boundaries of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (FCCPC) regulatory mandate within the country's telecommunications and digital commerce sectors.

Whilst the principal litigants were not present in person, WASPAN was represented by a legal team led by senior advocates Kemi Pinheiro and Chukwudi Enebeli, alongside Muyiwa Odubela and Pelumi Agbeyo. The FCCPC was defended by Olufunke Aboyade (SAN), alongside A. Aribisala, B. Alexander, and I.M. Balogun.

At the start of the hearing, the legal teams informed the court that friction regarding previous contempt of court applications had been mutually resolved outside the courtroom. Consequently, Pinheiro formally withdrew the Form 49 committal process previously submitted by WASPAN, leading the judge to dismiss the application.

With the contempt issue cleared, the court shifted its focus to the FCCPC’s preliminary objection, which challenges the validity of the entire lawsuit. Arguing the objection, Aboyade noted that the Digital, Electronic, Online, and Non-traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON Regulations) had been operational since July 2025, questioning why the claimant delayed in coming forward. She asserted that the framework was built purely to shield everyday consumers and argued that WASPAN had neglected to serve the mandatory statutory pre-action notice before taking legal steps.

Conversely, Pinheiro pushed for the dismissal of the regulatory body's objection, claiming the FCCPC was trying to inject disputed assertions into the record without providing supporting affidavit evidence. He argued that technical issues like delays or notice procedural gaps cannot be raised simply via written addresses. The senior advocate added that constitutional rights ensuring access to justice override procedural objections regarding pre-action alerts, particularly when a party faces immediate regulatory harm. Furthermore, he claimed the FCCPC was adopting contradictory legal strategies by disputing the court’s authority whilst simultaneously asking the same judge for legal remedies.

On the core dispute, WASPAN urged the court to throw out sections of the DEON Regulations, insisting that the watchdog had overstepped its legislative authority. The association argued that while the FCCPC can draft rules under its parent Act, those powers are strictly tethered to consumer protection and cannot override sector-specific regulations governing tech and financial systems.

Pinheiro specifically argued that the watchdog was attempting to claim powers that parliament had already assigned to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). He maintained that subsidiary rules cannot triumph over acts passed by the National Assembly, stressing that the contested framework clashes with the Central Bank of Nigeria Act and the Nigerian Communications Act.

Defending the regulations, the FCCPC countered that its enabling legislation grants it wide powers across all industries where market competition and consumer rights are at stake. Aboyade also pointed out that defendants in originating summons are fully entitled to lay out independent legal arguments in response to claims brought against them.

As arguments drew to a close, the claimant also challenged the credibility of the documentary evidence submitted by the FCCPC, asserting that the materials held no real evidential value and failed to prove any link between predatory "loan shark" operations and the verified members of WASPAN. Following these closing remarks, Justice Allagoa adjourned the case until 20 July for the final ruling.