The struggle between competition regulators and industry-specific agencies isn’t new. Now, Nigeria is facing the same debate, with a recent ruling affirming FCCPC’s authority over regulated sectors. In cases like this, courts often step in to decide who has control, usually ruling that competition regulators can oversee all industries.
Similar battles in other countries have shaped how businesses operate and how consumers are protected.
In India, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) clashed over who had control. The Supreme Court stepped in, ruling that TRAI would handle technical and licensing matters, while CCI would oversee competition issues.
A similar situation played out in Egypt when the Egyptian Competition Authority (ECA) investigated telecom companies for anti-competitive behavior, despite approval from the telecom regulator. The courts ruled in favor of the ECA, making it clear that competition laws apply across all industries, even those with their own regulators.
Beyond the headlines
On February 7, 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has the power to regulate competition in all sectors, including telecommunications.
This case started when Emeka Nnubia, a shareholder of MTN Nigeria, argued that only the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) had the right to oversee telecom operators. But the court ruled that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018, being a newer law, takes priority over any conflicting parts of the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) 2003.
This ruling applies to all sectors, including financial services, meaning banks, fintech companies, and payment providers could now face FCCPC scrutiny alongside CBN regulations. While the CBN remains the primary financial regulator, the FCCPC has the authority to oversee competition-related issues, such as market dominance and consumer protection.
The decision also confirmed that while the NCC still handles technical matters, the FCCPC has the main authority when it comes to competition, ensuring fair business practices across all industries.
The complete picture
This ruling could change the business environment for investors in Nigeria. On one hand, clearer competition rules could attract investors looking for a stable and fair market. On the other hand, big companies like MTN may now face more investigations and stricter regulations from both the FCCPC and NCC.
For banks and financial service operators, stricter oversight could mean tougher scrutiny of mergers, loan pricing, and digital banking practices. Large banks like Zenith and Access may face more regulatory hurdles, while smaller banks and fintechs could gain better opportunities in a fairer market.
While this could create more opportunities for smaller businesses, larger firms will likely face higher legal and compliance costs. Investors will have to consider whether the benefits of a fairer market outweigh the risks of tougher regulations.
Nigeria’s tax system may also feel the impact. This is because a more open market could lead to new businesses, increasing corporate tax revenue and expanding the tax base.
In 2024, Nigeria’s Value Added Tax (VAT) collections reached ₦6.72 trillion, reflecting an 84.62% year-on-year increase compared to ₦3.64 trillion in 2023. However, tighter regulations might raise operating costs, which businesses could pass on to consumers through higher prices. If prices rise, consumer spending may decrease, affecting VAT revenue.
The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) may also need to collaborate with the FCCPC to ensure companies don’t use unfair practices to reduce their tax bills.
While this ruling pushes for fair competition, it could also create challenges. Having two regulators overseeing the same industry may lead to delays, conflicting rules, and more red tape. If not managed properly, businesses could struggle with compliance and approvals.
However, other countries have found ways to improve coordination between agencies over time. A good example is the UK where conflicts between the CMA and sector regulators like Ofcom led to the Concurrency Regulations 2014, which clarified roles allowing regulators to oversee industry-specific issues while the CMA handled competition matters.
