WASPAN Appeals Court Ruling on Digital Lending Regulations
The Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) has filed an appeal against a recent Federal High Court judgment that affirmed the authority of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to regulate digital lending in Nigeria.
In a notice of appeal dated July 21—just a day after the ruling—WASPAN requested the Lagos Court of Appeal to overturn the decision made by Justice Ambrose Alagoa, which dismissed WASPAN’s suit challenging the FCCPC’s 2025 Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations.
The appeal is spearheaded by WASPAN’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kemi Pinheiro. The association has outlined nine grounds of appeal, arguing that the Federal High Court misinterpreted key sections of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (FCCPA) and improperly favored the FCCPC’s regulatory authority over telecommunications providers.
WASPAN seeks a reversal of the lower court’s ruling and the granting of its original requests filed on April 14, including a motion for an injunction to prevent the FCCPC from enforcing the DEON regulations until the appellate court has completed its review.
This appeal follows a previously unsuccessful challenge by WASPAN against the DEON regulations in the Federal High Court, where the association contended that such regulations should fall under the jurisdiction of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), as outlined in the Nigerian Communications Act of 2003.
Opposing the lawsuit, the FCCPC argued that WASPAN failed to meet necessary pre-suit notification requirements and that the lawsuit lacked a reasonable cause of action. However, Justice Alagoa rejected this preliminary objection, deeming that the case established a reasonable cause of action and noting that WASPAN had properly served a pre-suit notice to the FCCPC.
Court Upholds Regulatory Framework
The court then focused on the core dispute, ultimately dismissing WASPAN’s complaint. Justice Alagoa ruled that the FCCPC, under Sections 104, 105, 106, and 163 of the FCCPA, holds the authority to investigate anticompetitive practices, protect consumers, and issue relevant regulations within its jurisdiction. The court clarified that there was no inherent conflict between the FCCPA and the Nigerian Communications Act, asserting that while the FCCPC would handle consumer protection and competition issues, the NCC would retain responsibility for licensing telecommunications companies.
Additionally, the court determined that the FCCPC is not authorized to issue telecommunications licenses, clarifying that the DEON regulations do not establish a licensing regime for telecommunications. As a result, the regulations were deemed to remain within the FCCPC’s statutory authority, leading to the dismissal of WASPAN’s original petition.
Following the court’s ruling, the FCCPC announced the resumption of the implementation and enforcement of the DEON regulations. The Commission stated that the court had rejected WASPAN’s claims in their entirety, affirming the validity of the regulations and lifting a prior interim order that had temporarily delayed enforcement.
WASPAN Challenges Legal Basis of the Ruling
In its appeal, WASPAN contests the legal underpinnings of the Federal High Court’s decision, particularly scrutinizing the intersection of the FCCPC’s broader mandate for consumer protection and competition, and the specific authorities wielded by the NCC. The association emphasizes that Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act explicitly entrusts the NCC with the responsibility for promoting fair competition and consumer protection within the telecommunications sector.
WASPAN argues that the FCCPC’s authority should yield to the specialized regulatory framework governing telecommunications. The association also contests the Federal High Court’s interpretation of Section 1 of the FCCPA, asserting that the court incorrectly applied the law broadly across the entire economy, failing to honor the phrase “as otherwise indicated.”
Moreover, WASPAN maintains that Section 163 of the FCCPA does not grant the FCCPC unlimited power to create regulations for all commercial activities and questions the necessity of FCCPC approval for regulated entities offering consumer financial services under Section 7 of the DEON regulations. The association posits this requirement effectively allows the FCCPC to assume licensing authority over entities in the telecommunications sector despite the NCC’s established authority.
Internal Contradictions and Constitutional Concerns in the Ruling
The appeal also highlights contradictions within the Federal High Court’s ruling, which dismissed the case even after concluding that the FCCPC could not overstep into the NCC’s statutory functions and lacked licensing authority. WASPAN argues that the court should have declared Section 7 of the DEON Regulations invalid based on this conclusion.
The association further critiques the court’s reliance on Section 104 of the FCCPA, asserting that this clause cannot override the sector-specific regulations outlined in the Nigerian Communications Act. According to WASPAN, when a specific law and a general law govern the same subject, precedence should be given to the specific statute in cases of conflict.
Additionally, WASPAN raises constitutional concerns, claiming that the DEON rules impede its members’ rights to freedom of association and contractual independence as guaranteed by Article 40 of the Nigerian Constitution. The association stresses that its members should have the liberty to select their preferred intermediaries and service providers, and argues that without explicit legal authority, such rights cannot be curtailed by subordinate legislation.
