The leadership of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) is facing possible contempt proceedings after allegations that the commission failed to comply with a Federal High Court order restraining it from enforcing controversial regulations affecting digital lending services within Nigeria’s telecommunications sector.
The development follows a ruling delivered by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos on April 15, 2026, which temporarily barred the FCCPC, its officials, employees and agents from implementing the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations 2025, popularly known as the DEON Regulations.
The court order was issued in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/760/2026 filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) against the FCCPC.
In a fresh development, the court issued a Form 45 notice, officially titled “Notice of Consequences of Disobedience of Court Order,” warning the FCCPC and its Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Tunji Bello, that failure to comply with the court’s directive could result in imprisonment for contempt.
“Take notice that unless you obey the directions contained in the order of this Honourable Court, you will be guilty of contempt of court and may be committed to prison,” the notice stated.
Legal experts say the issuance of Form 45 represents the formal commencement of committal proceedings, a legal process through which courts enforce obedience to judicial orders and punish acts considered contemptuous.
Justice Lewis-Allagoa also reaffirmed that the interim injunction restraining the FCCPC remains valid pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. The court subsequently fixed May 15 for the hearing of both the main case and the preliminary objection filed by the FCCPC.
Earlier attempts by the commission to vacate the restraining order were rejected by the court, which ruled that maintaining the status quo was necessary to protect businesses involved in airtime lending, data advances and other telecom-based value-added financial services until the legal dispute is resolved.
At the centre of the controversy is the FCCPC’s DEON Regulations introduced through Government Notice No. 3 issued on July 24, 2025. The regulations were designed to regulate unsecured digital lending operations in Nigeria, including emerging telecom-based credit products such as airtime loans and data credit services offered to subscribers.
However, WASPAN has challenged the legality of the regulations, arguing that the FCCPC exceeded its statutory powers by attempting to regulate areas already under the authority of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
According to the association, telecommunications-related lending and value-added services fall primarily within the NCC’s regulatory jurisdiction, making parts of the DEON Regulations unconstitutional and potentially disruptive to the telecom industry.
WASPAN also argued that lifting the injunction before the court reaches a final decision would expose operators to regulatory uncertainty and possible sanctions under rules that are still being contested in court.
Industry observers say the case could have far-reaching implications for regulatory authority and oversight within Nigeria’s rapidly expanding digital finance ecosystem. The dispute highlights growing tensions between sector regulators over control of digital financial services, particularly as telecom companies increasingly provide products traditionally associated with banking and fintech institutions.
Analysts also note that the outcome of the case may determine the future regulatory framework for airtime credit, mobile lending, digital consumer protection and value-added telecom services in Nigeria.
The legal battle comes at a time when millions of Nigerians rely on airtime borrowing, data advances and mobile credit services to maintain communication and internet access amid economic pressures and rising living costs.
Observers say the court’s final decision could clarify the boundaries between consumer protection regulation and telecommunications oversight while shaping how digital lending services are supervised in the country going forward.
