FCCPC’s compliance under protest is the rule of law in practice

By Ilemona Onoja

The most revealing moments in any legal system occur when a powerful institution disagrees with a court yet complies anyway. Agreement requires nothing of anyone; compliance under protest reveals whether a country’s constitutional architecture is decorative or functional.

Nigeria has just had one of those moments.

On 15 April 2026, a Federal High Court in Lagos granted an interim injunction preventing the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission from enforcing its DEON Regulations against members of the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN). The Commission believed its regulations were lawful and exercised its right to challenge the order. The court heard the application, considered the arguments, and declined to discharge the injunction.

For six weeks after that ruling, enforcement continued in practice. The airtime and data credit services on which tens of millions of subscribers relied remained suspended, and the gap between the court’s order and conditions on the ground was evident to subscribers, operators, and investors alike.

That gap has now closed. The FCCPC has suspended enforcement of the DEON Regulations in line with the court’s order. Airtel and Globacom have restored their airtime credit services, and other operators, such as MTN Nigeria, are expected to follow shortly. The position the court established on 15 April has, after a difficult and unnecessary six-week period, now taken effect in practice.

Three things about this sequence merit acknowledgement, as each reflects an institution performing its intended function.

The first is WASPAN’s conduct. When the association concluded that the FCCPC had overstepped its regulatory authority, it chose the courtroom over the press conference: engaged senior counsel, filed suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, presented its case on the law, and obtained an order.

In a country where regulatory disputes routinely escalate into public confrontations and political lobbying before anyone consults a judge, WASPAN’s decision to lead with litigation rather than spectacle is worth recognising as a model for pursuing institutional disagreements.

The second is the judiciary’s performance. Justice Lewis-Allagoa heard the initial application, evaluated the legal arguments, and granted the injunction on their basis. When the Commission returned to challenge the order, the court gave the challenge a full hearing and upheld the injunction on the same legal grounds.

Both sides had the opportunity to present their case; the process was orderly, transparent, and grounded in statute. In a country where public confidence in judicial institutions requires constant reinforcement through observable conduct, this is the judiciary functioning exactly as the Constitution intends: a dispute arose, the affected parties brought it before a court, and the court applied the law and issued a binding decision.

The third, and perhaps the most significant for the precedent it sets, is the FCCPC’s decision to comply. Suspending enforcement of regulations you believe lawful, on the authority of a court order you intend to challenge, is an act of institutional discipline that deserves that name.

The Commission has indicated it will pursue the appellate process, which is entirely its right. Complying with a judicial order while exercising the constitutional right to appeal is precisely how the rule of law operates in practice; it is the difference between a system in which courts have authority and one in which they merely have opinions.

I remain mindful that the underlying legal questions are before the courts, and I will continue to observe the discipline required by the sub judice convention. The merits of the FCCPC’s regulatory position and the scope of the NCC’s statutory mandate in relation to telecommunications services are matters for judicial determination.

The past weeks offer something Nigeria does not often produce: a case study in how institutional disputes are resolved in a democracy governed by law. An industry body identified what it believed was regulatory overreach, went to court, and the court ruled. The regulator tested that ruling through the proper procedural channels; the court affirmed the regulator’s position; the regulator complied and signalled its intention to appeal. At every stage, the available legal mechanisms were used rather than circumvented, and political shortcuts were declined rather than exploited.

This matters beyond the telecommunications sector. Nigeria’s ambitions under the National Development Plan, its drive to attract foreign direct investment in digital infrastructure, and its positioning as West Africa’s anchor economy all rest on a single proposition: that institutions in this country respect the authority of the courts. Every time that proposition is tested and confirmed, institutional credibility strengthens in ways no investment roadshow or policy announcement can replicate.

The system was tested over the past two months and held firm. The courts performed their constitutional function with rigour and independence. The parties used the available legal process with discipline. The regulator, after a difficult period, has bowed to constitutional order. Everyone who depends on institutional predictability in Nigeria, from the subscriber borrowing two hundred naira of airtime to the foreign investor assessing sovereign risk, benefits when that sequence plays out to its proper conclusion.

The appellate process will run its course. What has happened here is worth naming clearly: the rule of law worked.

_Ilemona Onoja, a lawyer and public policy commentator, writes from the United Kingdom._