The legal battle between the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) took a dramatic turn on Monday as contempt proceedings earlier initiated in the matter were withdrawn before the Federal High Court in Lagos.
Justice A. L. Allagoa subsequently struck out the contempt application after parties informed the court that issues surrounding the committal proceedings had been resolved.
The case, marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026, concerns WASPAN’s challenge to the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online, and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Guidelines, 2025 (DEON Regulations), which the association alleges unlawfully extend the Commission’s powers into sectors regulated by other agencies.
Proceedings at the court’s Ikoyi division drew appearances from prominent senior advocates on both sides.
Kemi Pinheiro SAN led the Plaintiff’s legal team alongside Chukwudi Enebeli SAN, Muyiwa Odubela and Pelumi Agbeyo, while Olufunke Aboyade SAN appeared for the FCCPC with A. Aribisala, B. Alexander and I.M. Balogun.
At the opening of proceedings, counsel to the FCCPC informed the court that discussions between both parties had resolved the dispute relating to the contempt proceedings, paving the way for the hearing of substantive applications.
Following the announcement, Pinheiro formally withdrew the Form 49 contempt process earlier filed by WASPAN, after which the court struck it out.
The hearing then proceeded to arguments on the FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.
Aboyade argued that the DEON Regulations had been operational since July 2025 and questioned why the Plaintiff waited until now to challenge them.
She maintained that the regulations were designed to protect consumers and argued that the Plaintiff failed to comply with statutory pre-action notice requirements before filing the suit.
But Pinheiro strongly opposed the objection, insisting that the FCCPC improperly relied on factual allegations unsupported by affidavit evidence.
According to him, claims relating to delay and procedural non-compliance cannot be validly raised merely through written submissions.
He further argued that constitutional rights granting citizens access to the courts override technical objections tied to pre-action notices, particularly where a litigant complains of imminent regulatory harm.
Pinheiro also accused the FCCPC of taking contradictory legal positions by contesting the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously requesting the same court to exercise judicial powers in its favour.
On the substantive issues, the Plaintiff urged the court to strike down portions of the DEON Regulations, arguing that the FCCPC had exceeded its legal mandate.
WASPAN maintained that the Commission was attempting to assume regulatory authority already assigned to the Nigerian Communications Commission and the Central Bank of Nigeria under existing laws.
The Plaintiff further argued that subsidiary legislation cannot stand where it conflicts with provisions of Acts enacted by the National Assembly.
However, the FCCPC defended its powers, insisting that its enabling law grants the Commission authority across sectors where consumer rights are implicated.
Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings are entitled to formulate independent legal issues in defence of claims brought before the court.
During final submissions, the Plaintiff challenged documentary exhibits tendered by the FCCPC, arguing that the materials lacked evidential credibility and failed to establish any direct link between alleged activities of “loan sharks” and members of WASPAN.
After hearing final arguments from both parties, Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter until July 20, 2026, for judgment.
