By Stephen Simon
The legal dispute between the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) took a significant turn on Monday after contempt proceedings initiated in the matter were withdrawn before the Federal High Court in Lagos.
Justice A.L. Allagoa subsequently struck out the contempt application after counsel informed the court that issues surrounding the committal proceedings had been amicably resolved, paving the way for arguments on the substantive dispute.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026, was filed by WASPAN to challenge the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Guidelines, 2025 (DEON Regulations), which the association contends unlawfully extend the Commission’s regulatory powers into sectors already governed by other statutory agencies.
The proceedings, held at the Federal High Court’s Ikoyi Division, featured appearances by senior advocates representing both parties.
WASPAN’s legal team was led by Kemi Pinheiro SAN 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 commencement of proceedings, counsel for the FCCPC informed the court that discussions between both sides had resolved issues relating to the contempt application.
Following the development, Pinheiro formally withdrew the Form 49 contempt proceedings previously filed by the Plaintiff, prompting the court to strike out the application.
Attention then shifted to the FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.
Arguing the objection, Aboyade submitted that the DEON Regulations had been in force since July 2025 and questioned why the Plaintiff waited several months before instituting legal proceedings.
She maintained that the regulations were introduced to enhance consumer protection and further argued that WASPAN failed to comply with mandatory pre-action notice requirements before approaching the court.
However, Pinheiro opposed the objection, contending that the FCCPC improperly relied on factual allegations not supported by affidavit evidence.
According to him, issues relating to delay and alleged procedural deficiencies cannot be established through written submissions alone without evidential backing before the court.
The senior advocate further argued that constitutional rights guaranteeing access to justice supersede technical objections relating to pre-action notices, particularly where a litigant alleges imminent regulatory injury.
Pinheiro also accused the FCCPC of adopting inconsistent legal positions by challenging the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously seeking judicial reliefs from the same court.
On the substantive claims, WASPAN urged the court to invalidate portions of the DEON Regulations, arguing that the Commission had exceeded the limits of its statutory authority.
The association maintained that the regulations encroach on areas already regulated by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), contrary to existing legislative frameworks.
It further argued that subsidiary legislation cannot override or conflict with provisions contained in Acts enacted by the National Assembly.
In response, the FCCPC defended the regulations and its regulatory mandate, insisting that its enabling statute grants broad authority to intervene in matters affecting consumer rights across sectors of the economy.
Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings are entitled to formulate and present independent legal issues in response to claims brought against them.
During final submissions, the Plaintiff challenged documentary exhibits tendered by the FCCPC, arguing that the materials lacked sufficient evidential value and failed to establish any direct connection between alleged misconduct by online lenders and members of WASPAN.
After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Allagoa reserved judgment and adjourned the matter until July 20, 2026.
I agree with your choice. For a legal affairs publication, it is the strongest headline because it highlights the immediate court decision while signaling the broader regulatory dispute that remains before the court.
