Lesson not learnt

“No portion of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act gives such powers to the Central Bank of Nigeria, nor does the Central Bank of Nigeria Act.’’

The court relied heavily on Section 104 of the FCCPA, which provides that the Act takes precedence over other laws in all matters relating to competition and consumer protection, subject only to the Constitution.

“Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law but subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in all matters relating to competition and consumer protection, the provisions of this Act shall override the provisions of any other law,” he stated.

Just like the previous judgments on the issue, there is no ambiguity in this judgment. No Latin or Greek expressions, and this has been the tone of previous judgments that the commission had secured over some other organisations that had challenged its power on consumer protection.

One would have thought that after one or two attempts by some giants to test the legal basis of the commission's powers, with those attempts failing woefully, others would simply begin to adjust, realising that there is a new sheriff at the commission who is ready to test its powers to the fullest extent of the law.

This judgment, indeed, is another boost for consumer rights advocacy in the country’s banking sector. And, as Tunji Bello, Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, said, the ruling is a significant milestone in strengthening consumer rights within Nigeria’s financial sector. It also strengthens the commission’s hands in addressing consumer complaints under the law.

Read Also: 2027: Abiru, Edun back Hamzat's bid for APC governorship ticket

What all these positive judgments are telling us is that FCCPC has literally been sitting on power that it was itself either not aware of, or simply refused to exercise to the fullest for whatever reason until Bello took over on July 25, 2024. Unfortunately, while the commission was not taking full advantage of its powers under the law, it was Nigerian consumers that suffered.

The saying that the 'consumer is king' is age-long. But that would seem in other climes; not Nigeria. In Nigeria, it is the other way round. Nigerian consumers are at the mercy of all manner of producers and service providers.

They are served darkness after paying for light. Telecoms providers charge their subscribers for failed calls, messages that are not delivered and internet without data. Airlines inflate fares just because there is a surge of customers.

Bello, at the risk of repeating oneself, or parroting others, has revolutionised the commission. He has, in fact, been rewriting its narrative from a hitherto unknown agency of government to a household name that many Nigerians do not need to scratch their heads before telling about its existence.

The commission resolved more than 9,091 consumer complaints between March and August, last year, across 30 economic sectors. The banking sector accounted for the highest number of consumer complaints (3,173). This was followed by 1,543 against Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies, 1,442 against fintech operators, and 458 in the electricity sector. Other areas with notable cases included e-commerce (412), telecommunications (409), retail/wholesale/shopping (329), aviation (243), information technology (131), and road transport and logistics (114).

The cases ranged from unfair charges, unauthorised deductions, deceptive marketing, and service failures, to defective products and lack of redress within acceptable timelines.

A total of N10 billion was collected for the consumers and customers involved in the 9,091 complaints in just six months! Again as Bello said, the figures reflected the struggles Nigerians face daily. “These numbers are not just statistics; they tell the story of consumer frustration, and the daily challenges Nigerians face in essential services. However, the FCCPC is determined to hold businesses accountable, ensure compliance with the FCCPA, and promote fair market practices that protect the welfare of all consumers.”

One thing I like about Justice Omotosho’s judgment on this matter is the fact that it slammed a fine of N2 million on UBA for bringing a frivolous case before him, thereby wasting the time of the court.  Though this might look like 'chicken change' to UBA, the import is in the symbolism. Earlier judgments on the question of whether the FCCPC has right to inquire into consumer complaints had adequately settled the matter. Yes, the courts have ruled. In what sector? In every sector under the sun. There is no ambiguity about it at all. The judgments were written in simple English that even the layman should understand.

Indeed, Justice Omotosho had maintained this constant position in the case involving Multichoice and the FCCPC in his judgment against the former, to wit; that the commission has the right to look into the price increases Multichoice effected as against the cable service provider's position that it doesn't.

Justice Omotosho is not alone in this.  Other judges have spoken in a similar vein. F.N. Ogazi of the Lagos State High Court had similarly ruled in February 2025 that the FCCPC can exercise regulatory power in the telecoms sector. Just as the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal had, on April 25, last year, in a case involving Meta Platforms Incorporated (Facebook) and WhatsApp LLC against the commission also affirmed FCCPC's powers to regulate competition and consumer protection even in regulated industries.

Granted that courts are there for settlement of disputes, there are also certain matters that are considered frivolous and a waste of the time of the court. So, why would a big player like UBA go to court over a question whose answer is in the public domain, thereby wasting the time of the court?

But, again, that is the usual fate that the courts suffer in the hands of many of our big politicians, the elite and big corporate entities. It is only their prerogative. Poor men are not privileged to have such entitlement.

The fact of the matter is that law is predictable. Its being an ass does not in any way negate its predictability. It is when our big people and corporate giants usually want to 'go and try their best' (apologies to one of our prominent traditional rulers in the south west, who is now deceased, who used that expression in the heat of the June 12 imbroglio) because they want the tide turned in their favour at all cost that they make the law to look like it is unpredictable, especially when they find pliable judges on whose shoulders they could lean. Or when they find equally malleable high-ranking public officials that are ready to play ball with them, even if they commit blue murder.

It is because of this big man or corporate giant syndrome that we are having difficulty in differentiating between 'status quo ante bellum' and 'status quo ante' when there is and should be no ambiguity about it. The difference is clear. But that is what some big men are trying to hijack the court processes to tell them!

I wish more judges would emulate Justice Omotosho, especially with cases involving politically-exposed persons who like to waste the time of the court by asking for all manner of frivolous injunctions. Indeed, the judges should not be lenient with them as Justice Omotosho has been to UBA. These are people with very deep pockets. The courts can help take some of those monies from them for the public good. After all much of the money in question originally belong to the public.

Whenever our over-pampered elite, politicians in particular, are accused of corruption, they start wasting the time of the court by shopping for frivolous time-wasting injunctions instead of addressing the substantive issue of whether they are thieves or not.  This is the more reason judges should descend more on corporate bodies that still come before them to challenge the powers of the FCCPC in matters concerning consumer rights. The more harsh punishments are meted out to these giants, the better.

The banks cannot be pretending as if they smell only of roses. Even from the FCCPC record from March to August, last year that we saw above, the sector had the highest number of consumer complaints. So, the overriding interest should be in the banks working towards sanitising the sector rather than wasting the time of the court on trying to find out whether the agency that wants to call them to question has the powers to do so or not, important as that too is.

More than anything else, we need to protect the interest of many consumers out there who are only lamenting in silence because of the peculiar nature of our clime; a clime where only a few producers or service providers want to do the right thing. I have always believed that sector regulators in many cases cannot alone guarantee consumer rights. And if the FCCPC has the primary responsibility to fill this vacuum, so be it.

But the government still needs to do more, especially in the absence of consumerism (movement protecting consumer rights).