By Emiola Daniel
A new industry has mushroomed in the last few weeks in Nigeria. Let us, for want of a better phrase, call it “Pay As You Go” media market in which a litigant loses in court and the next thing, they pay hack writers, “TV pocket lawyers” and online hustlers to make a false interpretation of the court ruling. The shame of it all is the absurd length some of these hirelings would, for few shekels of silver, go in insulting public intelligence with illogic while inadvertently mortgaging the interests of their own fatherland.
As a keen follower of Nigeria’s cable sector in the last decade, this is the impression one gets since an Abuja Federal High Court dismissed as “an abuse of court process” a suit filed in March by MultiChoice (operator of DSTV and GoTV) against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
A chorus of voices — disguised as independent commentary but reading like a coordinated media offensive — has emerged to distort the facts, misrepresent the judgment, and attack the Commission’s integrity.
Note, MultiChoice was the litigant, not FCCPC as being projected by the brigade of hack writers online.
MultiChoice had rushed to the court seeking to restrain the Commission from conducting an investigation.
The facts are clear: MultiChoice’s suit was dismissed. Its attempts to bar the FCCPC from investigating its pricing practices failed. The Commission’s powers under the FCCPA 2018, especially to investigate exploitative pricing, remain fully intact.
But this simple statement, rendered in English language and not pidgin, is now being twisted by MultiChoice and its media hirelings. Fevered efforts are being made to mischaracterise the outcome, suggesting that the Commission was “reined in” or had “overreached.” These claims are not only inaccurate, they are legally and factually indefensible.
Obviously, following the ruling, MultiChoice is afraid that the affirmation of FCCPC’s powers means an obligation to honour Commission’s invitation and explain certain nagging questions. Hence, this shameless desperation to either misinterpret or obfuscate the real issues.
The genesis of the latest episode was early February when one aggrieved consumer, Festus Onifade, filed a case (Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025) against MultiChoice and joined the FCCPC as a party, seeking regulatory intervention. In line with its statutory mandate under Sections 32 and 33 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018, the FCCPC invited MultiChoice to an investigative hearing on February 27.
In the May 8 ruling, Justice James Omotosho dismissed the MultiChoice’s suit in its entirety, describing it as an abuse of court process given the pendency of Mr. Onifade’s earlier and related case. The Court made no order in MultiChoice’s favour, and every single one of the reliefs sought by the company was denied. This is, unequivocally, a procedural and substantive win for the FCCPC.
Another common theme in the ongoing media spin is the idea that MultiChoice is unfairly targeted while others are ignored. But the difference is scale, dominance, and conduct. Unlike many other players, MultiChoice holds substantial market power and has engaged in a pattern of frequent and sharp price increases, over 174% in less than two years, without meaningful consumer accommodation. It is also the only provider to defy an advisory while facing an open regulatory inquiry.
In sum, this speaks to what the FCCPC had flagged for years: unchecked dominance and absence of effective competition, which allows MultiChoice to act with little fear of consumer loss.
Again, efforts to portray FCCPC’s action after the May 8 judgement as an attempt at price control is most mischievous and disingenuous. To be clear, the FCCPC does not control price or fix prices. Its intervention was based on its legal duty to investigate where a dominant player’s conduct may harm consumers.
Overall, its mandate relates to ensuring fair competition and eschewing exploitative practices. In fact, I recall that during a series of townhall meetings across the country last year, the FCCPC boss, Mr. Tunji Bello, made it clear that since we run a free market economy, there is nothing like price control in its mandate, nor is the commission a substitute for a price control board.
It is, therefore, most laughable when MultiChoice and its media hirelings now postulate that invitation extended to the service provider in February was all about price control. I believe that clause was inserted in the writ brought by the petitioner in March as a blackmail. What mischief!
The distinction between price control under Section 88 and investigative powers under Section 72 is clear in the FCCPA and has been made repeatedly by the Commission in public statements. Conflating the two is either intellectually dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Some of the hired megaphones have gone so far arguing that pay-TV is “not an essential service,” and therefore outside the scope of concern. That is both legally and ethically flawed. The FCCPA does not limit protection to “essential” services. It applies to all goods and services offered for value in Nigeria, particularly where consumer harm or market abuse is alleged. The fact that a service is discretionary does not excuse abuse or exclude regulatory oversight.
Again, the frequently cited “lowest price in Africa” argument collapses under scrutiny. Pricing must be understood in context, not raw foreign exchange terms. Nigerians are not paid in dollars. The appropriate metric is local affordability, not external comparisons. More importantly, price hikes must be assessed in relation to service value, consumer feedback, and market behaviour, not company’s whims.
The FCCPC’s concerns are not isolated in any case. On 23 March 2025, Save the Consumers, a respected Nigerian consumer rights organisation, issued a strong-worded statement condemning MultiChoice’s “monopolistic antics”.
Indeed, following an announcement by MultiChoice in February it would hike service rates, the consumer protection body had invited it to clarify certain issues, especially coming barely seven after the cable service provider similarly hiked their rates. Then, Multichoice asked for a grace of one week to make an appearance. FCCPC obliged but with the proviso that the pending price hike be put on hold until the arising issues were resolved.
But in a clear case of bad faith, Multichoice went ahead and raised their rates in Nigeria at a time it was cutting rates in its home country, South Africa “in solidarity with the people over rising cost of living”. The big puzzle: how come they are raising prices in Nigeria with relatively bigger client base and lowering same in South Africa? Isn’t that price apartheid?
While Nigerian consumers were enduring rising costs, in South Africa, MultiChoice simultaneously rolled out price reductions of up to 38%, with new channels and service upgrades “to cushion economic hardship”.
Two, elsewhere in Uganda, MultiChoice is now running Pay Per View through affordable weekly subscription packages under the Ka Weekie campaign, offering DStv and GOtv viewers plans starting from just UGX 5,000. These flexible, short-term payment options were promoted as responses to “consistent subscriber feedback” and a commitment to affordability.
But no such opportunity is available for Nigerian consumers. Why?
Records show that MultiChoice’s pricing strategy over the past two years has been anything but modest. In May 2023, the price of its Premium Package jumped from ₦16,200 to ₦24,500, an increase of 51.23%. In November 2023, another hike pushed the price to ₦29,500, an additional 20.41%. In May 2024, subscription rose again to ₦37,000, a 25.42% increase. On 1 March 2025, the price further increased to ₦44,500, a 20.27% jump.
Each increase came with corresponding adjustments across all subscription packages. This cumulative escalation, over 174% in less than two years, underscores the seriousness of consumer concerns and justifies regulatory scrutiny under Section 72 of the FCCPA, which prohibits excessive or unfair pricing by dominant market players.
These are some of the issues that FCCCPC would love to have answered. A concern that should also be shared by genuine patriots, unlike these “Pay As You Go” media hirelings who are going haywire in the online space. Well, maybe hunger is responsible. By the way, the grapevine even has it that some of the “mercenaries” get rewarded with all-expense paid trip to watch soccer matches at Emirates Stadium in London! What a shame!
Finally, the suggestion that the FCCPC’s actions will scare investors is unfounded. What deters investors is unchecked market abuse, not regulation. Investors seek predictable, rules-based environments, where regulators uphold transparency, and dominant players are held accountable. That is what the FCCPC is doing.
• Mr. Emiola Daniel, a media law expert, wrote from Lagos.
