A Federal High Court in Lagos has declined an application by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission seeking to overturn an earlier injunction that prevents enforcement of parts of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations 2025.
The ruling preserves airtime lending and related digital credit services offered by members of the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria pending the outcome of the substantive case.
Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa had initially granted the interim injunction on April 15, 2026, following an ex parte motion filed by the association a day earlier. The order restrained the commission, its officers, and representatives from implementing the disputed regulatory provisions until further hearings.
At the resumed proceedings on April 28, the commission urged the court to either proceed with the case immediately or set aside the existing injunction. It argued that the restraining order should not remain in force while the matter was still being contested.
However, the association opposed the request, stating that the commission had only recently served its preliminary objection and that it required adequate time to respond in line with due process. It warned that lifting the injunction would give the regulator unchecked authority to enforce rules whose legality is still under judicial review.
After listening to both parties, the court refused the commission’s request to vacate the order. Instead, Justice Lewis-Allagoa directed that the main suit and the commission’s preliminary objection be heard together to ensure a comprehensive determination of the issues.
The case was subsequently adjourned to May 15, 2026, with the court affirming that the interim injunction remains fully in effect.
The decision provides temporary relief for telecom-based service providers offering airtime advances, data credit, and other digital lending products, which have become widely used across Nigeria.
The association maintains that while consumer protection is essential, certain aspects of the regulations may exceed the commission’s legal authority and conflict with the role of the telecommunications regulator, potentially imposing undue compliance burdens on licensed operators.
