Broadcasting
Court Fixes May 8 for Judgment in MultiChoice, FCCPC Dispute over Price Hike
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for judgment in the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Justice Omotosho fixed the date after lawyers representing the parties adopted and argued their written addresses for and against the suit.
The court had earlier restrained the Commission from taking “any administrative steps” against the plaintiff following an increase in the service price of two of its brands; DStv and GOtv.
The restraining order was a sequel to a formal request by MultiChoice seeking the court’s protection from planned sanction from the FCCPC, over the increase in the price of DStv and GOtv.
At the proceeding, the court granted the Commission’s request for an extension of time to regularise its processes and also allowed the plaintiff to withdraw its application for interlocutory injunction which has been overtaken by event.
Arguing its case, MultiChoice through Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, its lead counsel, submitted that the bone of contention is “whether the defendant have the right to control the price at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.”
While acknowledging the regulatory powers of the Commission, the senior lawyer argued that the Act establishing the FCCPC did not confer on it the powers to regulate price or prevent anyone including the plaintiff from increasing its prices.
Besides, Onigbanjo stated that the issue of whether the defendant can regulate price has been litigated before between the two parties, adding that the Tribunal had held that the Commission has no powers to regulate prices of goods and services in the country, except the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Plaintiff’s lawyer also submitted that even the president who is clothed with the powers to regulate prices has maintained “that his government does not believe in price control” but, that prices are determined by market forces of demands and supplies.
The plaintiff in addition submitted that if the FCCPC has no powers to control price “where does he have the powers to prevent the plaintiff from increasing price.
MultiChoice subsequently accused the Commission of discrimination, stating that all businesses in the country have been increasing their prices in line with economic conditions and inflation without the Commission raising an eyebrow, save with the plaintiff.
He, therefore, urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the suit.
While adopting his counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, lead counsel for the defendant, urged the court to first address the cause of action; which is the the issue of increase in the price of DStv and GOtv.
Agbugu disclosed that the Commission on February 25, wrote the plaintiff after it announced price increase effective from March 1, 2025.
According to the senior lawyer, MultiChoice was summoned to appear before the Commission on February 27, “they wrote that it was not convenient and proposed March 6. We then said that in the interim they should hold on with the price increment.”
Agbugu further stated that, “there was no issue of price regulation or fixing as at the time the action commenced.”
Besides, he claimed that the statute establishing the FCCPC, gave it “powers to check exorbitant pricing” and also powers to “regulate abuse of dominant position in the market” as it relates to prices and passing of cost to the consumer.
“The plaintiff occupies a dominant position in the television and entertainment,” Agbugu claimed, adding that the case before the court is not of price regulation but the powers of the Commission to investigate prices that are deemed exploitative and abuse of dominant position.
“The Commission is not to tell you to use price A or B but to determine that the price is exploitative” he said, “they ran away to be investigated over their planned action.
“Our action is not about price fixing; the issue is about whether the price is exorbitant…the mandate of the Commission is to protect the consumer.”
Reacting to the claim of discrimination, defendant’s lawyer, submitted that, “abuse of dominant position qualified them to be singled out for exorbitant pricing.”
Agbugu subsequently urged the court to strike out the suit and dismiss it because it attacks the major task of the Commission of protecting consumers.
“The suit should be dismissed and the plaintiff returned to us for investigation,” he added.
Responding, Justice Omotosho announced that, “judgment is reserved to May 8.”
Broadcasting Organization of Nigeria (BON) has established six committees to help strengthen and modernize the country’s broadcasting industry.
The committees will focus on content creation, skills development, digital transformation, sustainability, policy and commercial opportunities
The initiative aims to support industry growth and improve collaboration between broadcasters, regulators and media experts
The official launch recently, was led by Tony Akiotu, president, BON and attended by media professionals, program directors, former journalists and heads of specialized media organizations.
The event brought together several prominent figures in Nigeria’s media industry, including veteran broadcaster and trainer Bimbo Oloyede, Tony Uyah of M4S TV, Kingsley Uranta of Channels Television, Ismael Sani of Platinum TV and Ibrahim Shehu of Trust TV.
Together, they are expected to help drive innovation and support the growth of Nigeria’s broadcasting sector.
According to Akiotu, the committees are intended both to help shape industry policy and to provide a forum for dialogue between BON and broadcasting experts.
Akiotu said the ad hoc committees were intended to strengthen BON’s work and ensure that the umbrella body for Nigeria’s broadcasters played a more direct and meaningful role in developing the country’s broadcasting sector.
The six committees reflect the sector’s main priorities. The first focuses on collaboration and innovation to promote content creation.
The second is dedicated to training and talent development, while the third focuses on industry sustainability by improving the sector’s long-term financial viability.
A fourth committee will focus on digital transformation and work with the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) on regulatory issues.
The remaining two committees will oversee public policy advocacy and the development of sports and commercial rights to help broadcasters increase revenue and attract more investment. Together, the committees are expected to guide BON’s efforts to modernize and strengthen Nigeria’s broadcasting industry.
The committees, chaired by members of BON’s General Assembly and supported by the organization’s Secretariat, have an initial 12-month mandate that may be renewed if necessary.
They are required to submit a progress report within three months and implement approved recommendations within the following six months.
The arrangement is intended to ensure close oversight and the timely implementation of their work.
Akiotu also reminded committee members that Nigeria pioneered television broadcasting in Africa and urged them to carry out their work with greater effectiveness and efficiency.
Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) says it is investigating about 34 tertiary institutions over allegations that they failed to refund students whose tuition fees were paid twice under the Federal Government’s student loan scheme.
The Managing Director of NELFUND, Mr Akintunde Sawyerr, disclosed this during an interview on Arise Television.
Sawyerr said the agency had deployed a five-member investigative team, including operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and internal auditors, to examine the allegations.
According to him, the investigation was prompted by numerous complaints received from affected students.
“As of right now, there are 34 institutions that we are looking at closely with respect to this issue,” he said.
Sawyerr explained that the double payment issue arose because President Bola Tinubu directed that the student loan scheme commence in the middle of an academic session instead of at the beginning.
He said the decision compelled many students to pay their tuition fees to meet registration deadlines while awaiting approval of their loan applications.
“What happened is that a lot of schools got double payment; some from the students and some from us,” he said.
“The refund process is entirely out of our hands. It is the recipient of the double payments that is obliged to make refunds to the students.”
The NELFUND boss noted that many students had borrowed money from family members, friends and other sources to pay their tuition with the expectation of receiving refunds once the loans were disbursed.
He said while some institutions had promptly refunded affected students, others had failed to do so.
“Some have been very good at this. Others haven’t been so good at it,” Sawyerr said.
“I reserve judgement on the intentionality around it because, for some of them, they just didn’t have the process to make refunds.”
Sawyerr disclosed that NELFUND was exploring a tokenised payment system that would enable students to authorise tuition payments directly to their institutions, thereby reducing the likelihood of duplicate payments.
He said the agency deliberately chose not to disburse tuition loans directly to students to minimise the risk of fund diversion.
“Paying the funds to the students could really lead to the temptation for them to divert and do other things,” he said.
The managing director, however, acknowledged that NELFUND lacked the statutory powers to compel institutions to refund students or prosecute officials found culpable.
He added that many frustrated students had submitted complaints not only to NELFUND but also to anti-corruption agencies, including the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
Sawyerr also expressed concern over increases in tuition fees by some institutions following the introduction of the student loan scheme.
He said NELFUND had declined to pay institutions that increased their tuition fees beyond acceptable levels.
“Some schools, because they get paid easily, started to put up their fees. We refused, point blank, to pay institutions who had hiked their fees beyond a certain level,” he said.
He reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to investigating every reported irregularity and strengthening the implementation of the student loan programme through continuous monitoring and internal reviews.
Broadcasting
Obi, NDC Presidential Candidate Faces N50Bn Defamation Claim over Alleged Podcast Remark
Abayomi Arabambi, national vice chairman (South-West) of the Labour Party, has demanded a public apology, a retraction, and N50 billion in damages from Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), over an alleged defamatory statement made during a podcast interview.
The demand was contained in a letter issued by the law firm Neplus Ultra Attorneys and signed by Anderson U. Asemota, Peter O. Asimegbe, and Stanley C. Eziefulle on behalf of Arabambi.
According to the letter, the legal dispute arose from comments allegedly made by Obi during the interview, where he reportedly stated that Arabambi “does not have an address.”
Arabambi’s legal team described the statement as false, malicious, and defamatory, arguing that it portrayed their client as a faceless individual without legitimacy, credibility, or standing in public life.
The lawyers further claimed that the interview was widely circulated on television stations and digital platforms, exposing Arabambi to public ridicule and damaging his reputation.
“Our client has had a known residential and business address, maintains professional and political affiliations within Nigeria, and has never been a person whose whereabouts or identity were unknown,” the letter stated.
The legal team maintained that the alleged publication caused embarrassment and harmed Arabambi’s public image and political standing.
As part of their demands, the lawyers called for an unreserved public apology to be aired on national television, published on Obi’s verified social media platforms, and carried as full-page apologies in national newspapers.
They also demanded the payment of N50 billion as compensation for the alleged injury to Arabambi’s reputation, dignity, political standing, and public image.
Court Adjourns Alleged Binance Tax Evasion Case over Settlement Talks
Fixed Wired Internet Market Lags as Mobile Gains Ground
Xenophobic Attacks: OYC Threatens to Picket MTN Nigeria Offices
New NIMC Act Strengthens Data Protection, Privacy – Director
BON Establishes Six Ad Hoc Committees to Modernize Broadcasting
NASENI Moves to Digitize CCB’s 5m Assets Declaration and Operations
Mobile Internet Gender Gap Widest in Africa – GSMA
Nigeria Launches FreeTV Nationwide
CANAL+ Partners Samsung to Pre-Load DStv Stream on New Samsung TVs In Nigeria, Other African Countries
Lebara Nigeria Launches Lebara Play, Africa’s First Telecom-Owned Micro-Drama Platform
News3 days agoNRC, Ponzi Scheme Collapses Resulting Loss of Billions of Naira
News3 days agoNSITF Partners South African Insurer on Digital Transformation
E-Financial3 days agoFCT-IRS Unveils New Digital Platform, Taxporta
General News3 days agoKPMG Urges Africa’s Most Innovative Tech Entrepreneurs to Enter the Global Tech Innovator 2026 Competition
E-Business3 days agoFG Suspends New Internet Regulations to Prevent Overlapping Rules
E-Business3 days agoNIN Enrollment Hits over 136m as New ID Law Takes Effect
E-Business3 days agoPlateau PCC Collects Nigerians’ Data without Privacy Policy – FIJ
Telecom2 days agoNCC Seeks Cost-Based Pricing Framework for Ducts