Follow Us on Google
A pattern is emerging in Nigeria’s regulatory landscape that deserves scrutiny: the strategic use of inflated market data to manufacture a crisis, then using that crisis to justify regulatory interventions that bypass established legal frameworks. The playbook, for want of a better term, is math-washing.
Over the past week, a coordinated media narrative has saturated national dailies with a singular claim: that a single foreign entity holds a “12-year monopoly” over a first ₦3 trillion, and more recently ₦4.6 trillion, Nigerian airtime lending market. The figure is designed to shock. The framing is designed to anger. But a closer inspection of the underlying data reveals a deliberate distortion, one with real consequences for indigenous Nigerian technology companies.
The recent N4.6 trillion figure does not represent the Nigerian market. It is derived from the consolidated global revenue of Optasia, an infrastructure software provider operating in more than 25 countries, including Brazil, South Africa, and Egypt, and then presented in full as domestic Nigerian market volume.
Independent data, supported by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), place the actual domestic airtime credit ecosystem between ₦300 billion and ₦400 billion. The market has been inflated by over 1,000% to provide the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) with the scale needed to justify applying its Digital, Electronic, Online, and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) regulations to this sector.
The “monopoly” framing fares no better under scrutiny. Nigeria’s telecom Value-Added Services (VAS) ecosystem is not a single-player market. Telecommunications operators deliberately run a split-traffic model, distributing load across multiple providers to ensure redundancy and competitive service delivery.
The companies managing this traffic are Nigerian-registered, tax-paying entities with valid Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) licences, organised under the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN). That some of these companies licence foreign enterprise software to manage operations at scale is no different from Nigerian commercial banks running their core banking on Finacle or Oracle; it is a procurement decision, not a disqualifying dependency.
The collateral damage from this regulatory pursuit is tangible. By reclassifying instant airtime advances as consumer “loans” under the DEON framework, the FCCPC is not dismantling a foreign monopoly. It is disrupting a critical digital service relied on by millions of unbanked Nigerians who depend on micro-advances to manage daily economic pressures.
What should give pause is that this disruption is being pursued without the mandatory Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) required by the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC), the economic stress-test designed precisely to prevent regulators from acting on incomplete information.
The Federal High Court is scheduled to deliver its judgment on July 20 on the FCCPC’s actions against WASPAN. As that date approaches, the factual record matters. The “foreign monopoly” narrative offers a convenient frame for regulatory action, but the companies most exposed to the consequences are Nigerian-owned, Nigerian-staffed, and serving a Nigerian user base with few alternatives. That is the story the numbers, properly read, tell.
