Tension As Court Reserves Judgment On FCCPC Loan Rules Case

Justice A.L. Allagoa reserved judgment after counsel for both parties adopted their final written addresses in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026 at the Ikoyi division of the court on Monday.

The dispute centres on the legality of the Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON Regulations) introduced by the FCCPC.

Arguments during the proceedings focused on whether the FCCPC has the legal authority to regulate aspects of Nigeria’s digital lending space, particularly within the telecommunications and financial services sectors.

Although the parties were not physically present in court, WASPAN was represented by Senior Advocates of Nigeria Kemi Pinheiro and Chukwudi Enebeli, along with counsel Muyiwa Odubela and Pelumi Agbeyo. The FCCPC was represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olufunke Aboyade and other legal counsel.

At the beginning of the hearing, lawyers informed the court that earlier contempt proceedings had been resolved amicably. Following this, WASPAN withdrew its Form 49 contempt application, which was subsequently struck out by the court.

The matter then proceeded to the FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.

Counsel to the FCCPC argued that the DEON Regulations had been in force since July 2025 and questioned why the legal challenge was only filed recently. The Commission maintained that the regulations were designed to protect consumers and insisted that WASPAN failed to comply with mandatory pre-action notice requirements before initiating the suit.

In response, WASPAN’s counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection, arguing that the FCCPC introduced disputed claims without supporting affidavit evidence. He further maintained that issues relating to delay or procedural compliance could not be resolved through written submissions alone.

He also argued that constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to court override technical objections where regulatory actions allegedly cause imminent harm. Additionally, he accused the FCCPC of taking inconsistent positions by challenging jurisdiction while also seeking reliefs from the same court.

On the substantive issue, WASPAN asked the court to void parts of the DEON Regulations, arguing that the FCCPC exceeded its statutory powers. The association maintained that while the Commission can make regulations under its enabling law, such powers are limited to consumer protection and cannot override sector-specific regulators.

WASPAN further argued that the FCCPC was encroaching on powers belonging to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), insisting that subsidiary legislation cannot supersede Acts of the National Assembly, including the Nigerian Communications Act and the CBN Act.

The FCCPC, however, defended its position, arguing that its mandate extends to all sectors where consumer protection and competition issues arise.

After hearing final submissions from both sides, Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter for judgment until July 20, 2026.