In what has become one of Nigeria’s most defining showdowns over consumer protection and corporate autonomy, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operators of DStv and GOtv, is locked in a tense legal battle with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). At the heart of the dispute lies a critical question: In a free market economy, who gets to decide what consumers pay — the company offering the service or the regulator safeguarding public interest?
This high-stakes confrontation, now before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, not only tests the limits of FCCPC’s regulatory reach but also raises broader questions about monopolistic behavior, price control in unregulated sectors, and the rights of consumers in a system ostensibly driven by free market principles.
The Road to the Courtroom
The clash between FCCPC and MultiChoice began when the pay-TV giant announced a fresh round of price increases for its DStv and GOtv packages, effective March 1, 2025. This marked the second major hike in less than a year, following a similar move in May 2024. MultiChoice justified the increases as a response to surging inflation, foreign exchange instability, and rising operational costs — all too familiar reasons in today’s Nigerian economic climate.
However, the decision triggered outrage among subscribers, many of whom accused the company of price gouging and exploiting its dominance in the pay-TV space. With limited alternatives, Nigerian viewers felt cornered. Festus Onifade, a lawyer and consumer rights advocate, petitioned the FCCPC, calling on the Commission to intervene and investigate the alleged abuse of market dominance.
The FCCPC responded swiftly, issuing an interim order directing MultiChoice to suspend the planned price hike pending an investigation. The Commission’s position was clear: companies, no matter how large, must not engage in exploitative practices or unilaterally impose unbearable costs on consumers, especially in a country with high poverty and low purchasing power.
MultiChoice, however, challenged the FCCPC’s directive in court, arguing that the Commission had no statutory powers to regulate its prices. The company maintained that Nigeria operates a free market economy, where the government does not fix the prices of goods and services, especially not in sectors like pay-TV broadcasting.
Justice Omotosho’s Verdict
On May 8, 2025, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court delivered a judgment that did little to fully satisfy either side. The court dismissed MultiChoice’s suit, describing it as an abuse of court process. According to the judge, there was already a pending case — filed by Festus Onifade — against MultiChoice in a court of the same jurisdiction, and the new suit was therefore redundant.
However, in a critical observation, Justice Omotosho agreed with MultiChoice on one major point: that Nigeria remains a free-market economy, and that the FCCPC does not have unilateral powers to fix or freeze prices — unless the President delegates such powers through a formal instrument. Without this delegation, the judge ruled, the FCCPC’s interim order to suspend the price hike was an overreach.
Furthermore, the court noted that there was no evidence the FCCPC had begun a formal investigation before it issued its suspension directive to MultiChoice, weakening the regulatory body’s legal footing. In effect, while the court threw out MultiChoice’s suit, it also clipped the wings of the FCCPC, declaring it had exceeded its authority.
Enter the Court of Appeal
Not satisfied with Justice Omotosho’s judgment, both parties filed separate appeals before the Court of Appeal in Abuja. MultiChoice’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Moyosore Onigbanjo, raised three grounds of appeal.
First, the company argued that its case was not an abuse of court process. According to Onigbanjo, the parties and subject matter in its suit were different from the Onifade suit. Importantly, the FCCPC never objected to MultiChoice’s case on the basis of abuse of process — a point the judge raised suo motu (on his own), without inviting either party to address it.
Second, MultiChoice claimed the judge erred by dismissing its case entirely. Legally, a jurisdictional challenge that succeeds should result in the case being struck out, not dismissed. Striking out a case means it can be refiled; dismissal permanently bars the case. This, the company says, amounted to a denial of its right to a fair hearing.
Third, the company wants the Appeal Court to affirm that the FCCPC lacks authority to freeze prices in a free market, unless expressly empowered by the President. In effect, MultiChoice is asking the court to solidify its right to independently set prices.
FCCPC’s Counter-Appeal
In response, the FCCPC filed a cross-appeal, challenging several aspects of Omotosho’s judgment. Led by Prof. Joseph Abugu (SAN), the Commission raised eight grounds of appeal.
One of its central arguments is that the Commission does, in fact, have powers to issue interim directives — particularly when a company’s proposed actions could result in consumer exploitation. The FCCPC insists that its directive to MultiChoice was lawful and necessary to prevent irreversible harm to consumers.
Furthermore, the Commission argues that regulating anti-competitive conduct and investigating exploitative behavior is not the same as price fixing. According to Prof. Abugu, the FCCPC never claimed the right to set MultiChoice’s prices, but rather the authority to investigate whether the price hikes were unfair, excessive, or reflective of market abuse.
The FCCPC also insists that its actions were firmly grounded in the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), particularly Section 17(s), which empowers it to provide redress to consumers and regulate harmful business practices. The Commission maintained that MultiChoice, by virtue of its dominance in the pay-TV sector, has a higher burden of accountability.
Another key point of the FCCPC appeal is its insistence that the trial court erred in saying there was no evidence of MultiChoice’s market dominance or exploitative pricing. The Commission presented price hike charts and subscription data to show a pattern of arbitrary, frequent, and disproportionate increases — none of which were rebutted by MultiChoice during the proceedings.
On the issue of perceived regulatory bias, the FCCPC rejected the trial court’s observation that it unfairly singled out MultiChoice. According to the Commission, its intervention was based on a specific consumer complaint, not on any targeted agenda.
Price Hikes, Protests, and Public Sentiment
The legal battle comes amid growing frustration from Nigerian consumers over what many consider extortionate pricing by MultiChoice. Between 2021 and 2025, the company has increased subscription fees at least five times, citing rising inflation, FX scarcity, and operational challenges.
For instance, in March 2025, MultiChoice raised the price of its DStv Premium package from ₦24,500 to ₦29,500 — just ten months after the same package was increased from ₦21,000 to ₦24,500. The company similarly adjusted prices across its GOtv packages, with GOtv Max increasing from ₦4,850 to ₦6,500.
These increases sparked widespread backlash. Consumer advocacy groups accused MultiChoice of exploiting its market position to impose unjustified charges. Others criticized the FCCPC for acting too slowly and lacking the teeth to enforce meaningful penalties against powerful corporations.
In a bid to manage the fallout, MultiChoice in June 2025 slashed the price of its DStv decoder from ₦20,000 to ₦10,000 and began offering free subscription upgrades to new customers. But analysts say this was less about goodwill and more about reversing a visible drop in customer numbers. A report by Nairametrics indicated that subscriber numbers for DStv and GOtv had declined in the first half of 2025, as price-sensitive viewers abandoned the service or shifted to cheaper, streaming-based alternatives.
Broader Implications
This case — beyond its immediate commercial consequences — could reset the boundaries of regulatory power in Nigeria’s consumer protection landscape. If the Court of Appeal sides with MultiChoice, the decision could limit the FCCPC’s ability to intervene proactively in future pricing disputes, effectively placing more power in the hands of market forces and corporate interests.
On the other hand, if the FCCPC’s appeal is upheld, it would strengthen the Commission’s authority and expand its ability to police corporate conduct in both regulated and semi-regulated sectors. Such a ruling would send a clear message to dominant players in other sectors — including telecoms, pharmaceuticals, and food manufacturing — that consumer protection remains sacrosanct, even in a liberalized market.
The case also serves as a test for Nigeria’s judiciary. Consumer rights are a critical part of democratic economies, and how the courts interpret the FCCPA in relation to other laws — especially the constitutional protections around trade, commerce, and private enterprise — will define the regulatory landscape for years to come.
What Happens Next?
As of July 2025, no date has been fixed for the hearing at the Court of Appeal. Until then, Justice Omotosho’s verdict remains valid, unless suspended by a stay of execution. In practical terms, this means that MultiChoice is not legally barred from proceeding with its price hikes — though doing so may come with significant reputational risks.
Meanwhile, consumer advocacy groups and legal analysts continue to monitor the case closely. Many have called for clearer legislation to define the powers of the FCCPC in market regulation, suggesting that the current framework leaves too much room for judicial interpretation.
For now, viewers remain caught in the middle — paying more for services in a market where true competition remains elusive, and where the outcome of a legal battle could determine how much they pay for entertainment in the years to come.
Conclusion
The tussle between MultiChoice and the FCCPC is no longer just a regulatory dispute; it has become a litmus test for Nigeria’s commitment to consumer protection, competitive fairness, and legal clarity. It raises the all-important question: In a free market, who really holds the power — the regulator or the regulated? The Court of Appeal’s answer to this question could shape the future of not just pay-TV, but corporate accountability across Nigeria’s entire economy.
