Federal High Court Upholds ARCON’s Authority Over Advertising Regulations
The Federal High Court in Lagos has reaffirmed its commitment to the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) by rejecting an application for an interlocutory injunction filed by Watercress Hotels International Limited and co-plaintiff Samuel Ayinde. The court upheld the validity and constitutional integrity of ARCON’s regulatory powers concerning advertising practices in Nigeria.
Judgment Details and Historical Context
This ruling, delivered by Justice Akintayo Aluko in case number FHC/L/CS/12/26, aligns with a growing trend in which courts consistently endorse ARCON’s mandate against challenges. Earlier this year, the Federal High Court ruled in favor of ARCON in April regarding Digi Bay Limited (operating as Betway). Furthermore, in November, the court confirmed ARCON’s authority to oversee digital and social media advertising, including platforms such as Instagram, solidifying the foundations laid by the ARCON Act of 2022 through the case of Godec Power Nigeria Ltd. v. ARCON.
Cresson Hotels’ Legal Position and Court’s Dismissal
In the current case, Cresson Hotels International Limited sought a court order to prevent ARCON and its agents from taking any regulatory or enforcement actions against them while they awaited the court’s final decision on their substantive litigation. The plaintiffs argued that social media platforms should be exempt from ARCON’s oversight, as posts made there fall under the constitutional right to free expression.
Court’s Critique of the “Private Platform” Argument
The court decisively rejected this argument, emphasizing that the nature and intent of the communication itself took precedence over the platforms used for dissemination. This finding effectively weakens the “private platform” rationale as a defense against ARCON’s regulatory authority in future cases. Additionally, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate and reliable evidence to support their claims, leaving their application lacking in both legal and evidentiary grounds.
Outcome of the Case and Next Steps
As a result, the court denied all requests made in the interlocutory application. It is important to clarify that this ruling is a preliminary judgment, not final, as the substantive issues raised by the plaintiffs have yet to be fully adjudicated. The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 26, 2026, urging all parties involved to file and submit any outstanding documentation promptly to facilitate a swift resolution.
