Landmark Judgment Clarifies FCCPC And NCC Regulatory Powers Over Digital Lending And Telecommunications

The Federal High Court, Lagos Division, has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the regulatory boundaries between the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) in relation to digital lending and telecommunications services.¹ In Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) v. Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC),² Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa upheld the validity of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations, 2025, while affirming that the FCCPC does not possess the statutory authority to license telecommunications operators or regulate telecommunications licensing.

The Court held that although the FCCPC is empowered to regulate competition and consumer protection under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), those powers coexist with, and do not displace, the statutory responsibilities of the NCC under the Nigerian Communications Act. In the Court's words, "concurrency means coexistence, not displacement."

The judgment followed a challenge by WASPAN, which sought to invalidate the DEON Regulations after the FCCPC classified airtime and data credit services as digital lending activities. That classification had prompted major telecommunications operators to suspend emergency airtime and data credit services in April 2026, citing regulatory uncertainty and compliance concerns.

While the Court upheld the DEON Regulations, it clarified that the FCCPC's regulatory authority does not extend to issuing telecommunications licences. The judgment also raises questions regarding the legal basis upon which certain approvals previously granted under the DEON framework were issued, given the Court's reaffirmation that telecommunications licensing remains the exclusive responsibility of the NCC.

Effect of the Judgment on the DEON Framework: Regulation 7 and FCCPC Approval

 Regulation 7 of the framework,³ provides that:

Every undertaking involved in the provision of Consumer Lending Services as a Lender/Service Provider or other ancillary support prior to the commencement of these Regulations shall, where eligible, apply to, and receive the Commission's approval to continue to offer such services or engage in the conduct that is subject to these Regulations no later than 90 (ninety) days from the commencement of these Regulations.

Although the Federal High Court held that the FCCPC does not possess statutory authority to issue telecommunications licences, it nevertheless upheld the validity of the DEON Regulations and did not invalidate Regulation 7, which requires eligible undertakings to obtain the Commission's approval to continue operating under the DEON framework.

While the Court did not specifically interpret Regulation 7, the decision necessarily informs how the provision should be understood and applied. Since the Regulation was retained, it follows that the Commission's approval under Regulation 7 should be construed as a regulatory compliance requirement issued pursuant to the FCCPC's consumer protection and competition mandate under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), and not a market-entry licence for telecommunications services or other authorisation that falls within the exclusive regulatory competence of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

If the Court had thought that Regulation 7 amounted to the FCCPC issuing telecommunications licences, it would likely have found the provision inconsistent with the Nigerian Communications Act. Instead, the Court upheld the DEON Regulations.

Another notable aspect of the judgment is that, although the proceedings arose from the FCCPC's position that airtime and data credit services fall within the scope of the DEON Regulations as digital or non-traditional consumer lending activities, the Court did not expressly determine whether those products constitute "Consumer Lending Services" within the meaning of the Regulations. Instead, the Court focused on the legality of the DEON Regulations and the respective statutory mandates of the FCCPC and the NCC. Accordingly, while the FCCPC's regulatory position was not expressly rejected, neither was it specifically endorsed by the Court. The practical implication is that the DEON Regulations remain valid and may continue to be applied by the FCCPC to digital lending activities, including, where appropriate, airtime and data credit products, provided such application remains within the Commission's consumer protection and competition mandate and does not encroach upon the NCC's exclusive authority over telecommunications licensing and technical regulation.

Accordingly, entities engaged in digital or non-traditional consumer lending remain subject to the FCCPC's oversight and approval requirements under the DEON Regulations. However, where an entity also undertakes activities that require authorisation under the Nigerian Communications Act, it must continue to obtain the appropriate licence or approval from the NCC. The two regulatory frameworks therefore operate concurrently but within their respective statutory spheres, consistent with the Court's observation that "concurrency means coexistence, not displacement."

Key Takeaways

• The FCCPC (DEON Regulations), 2025 remain valid and
• The FCCPC retains jurisdiction over consumer protection and competition issues relating to digital lending.
• The NCC remains the sole statutory authority responsible for telecommunications licensing, technical regulation, and prudential oversight.
• The judgment underscores that overlapping regulatory mandates require internal coherence and cooperation rather than institutional displacement.
• Industry stakeholders now expect the FCCPC and NCC to establish a coordinated regulatory framework to avoid a recurrence of the regulatory uncertainty that led several telecommunications operators and banks to suspend airtime and data credit services over concerns about compliance 

Footnotes

^{1 See, TechCabal, “Nigerian court upholds digital lending rules but rejects parallel telecom licencing” at}

^{(https://techcabal.com/2026/07/21/nigerias-airtime-lending-battle-ends-with-a-split-decision/) accessed on 21st July 2026.}

^{2 Suit No. FHC/L/CS/760/2026 (Unreported).}

^{3 FCCPC ‘Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending’ 2025, Gazette No 00 Vol 116, available at (https://fccpc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Digital-Electronic-Online-or-Non-Traditional-Consumer-Lending-Regulations-2025.pdf) accessed on 31st July 2026.}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.