Nigeria’s estimated N400 billion annual airtime and data credit market could face higher operating and consumer costs as the regulatory dispute between the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and telecommunications stakeholders enters a new phase following the Federal High Court judgment and an appeal by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN).
The market, which serves about 40 million Nigerians, has become the latest flashpoint in the country’s increasingly complex digital economy, with operators warning that overlapping regulatory requirements could increase the cost of providing services and ultimately be passed on to consumers.
The Federal High Court in Lagos, in its July 20 judgment, affirmed the FCCPC’s authority to regulate aspects of airtime and data credit services while preserving the Nigerian Communications Commission’s role as the primary telecommunications regulator.
The judgment, however, has been appealed, leaving the sector awaiting further judicial clarification.
The economic concern is that additional compliance requirements could create a second layer of regulatory costs for businesses already licensed by their primary sector regulator.
Ilemona Onoja, a lawyer and public affairs commentator, said the implication of the judgment could extend beyond telecoms if it establishes a broader precedent for secondary regulatory oversight of businesses.
“What this means for Nigerians as a whole, whether we are lawyers or not, is that the court has established a second tier of licensing regardless of the industry,” Onoja said.
He argued that the additional layer would increase the cost of doing business and could ultimately affect consumers.
“We have a whole new layer of regulations, and we all know regulations mean costs, and costs are going to be passed on to the consumers,” he said.
Onoja said the effect could be particularly significant in airtime credit because investors and service providers would factor regulatory uncertainty into their pricing decisions.
“If I was a guy investing billions into Nigeria and there is a chance I might not get that payment back, what will I do? I am going to increase interest rates,” he said.
“When there is uncertainty, I increase interest rates,” he added, arguing that additional regulatory risk could eventually translate into higher costs for consumers.
Gbenga Adebayo, chairman of the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), has similarly urged the FCCPC and NCC to establish clear regulatory boundaries following the judgment.
Reacting to the ruling, Adebayo said, “The court has confirmed the FCCPC’s authority and, in the same breath, affirmed that the NCC’s role is preserved.”
He called for a formal coordination framework between the two regulators and consultation with industry stakeholders before further enforcement actions are taken, particularly where such actions could disrupt services.
Adebayo’s position reflects the industry’s wider concern that regulatory uncertainty, rather than competition or innovation, could become an additional cost burden for operators and service providers.
The FCCPC, however, has consistently maintained that its intervention is rooted in consumer protection and the need to impose discipline on Nigeria’s expanding digital lending market.
Tunji Bello, executive vice chairman of the FCCPC, said earlier in the year that effective regulation was necessary to protect both consumers and compliant operators.
“Effective regulation depends on consistent application. Compliant businesses deserve a predictable regulatory environment, and consumers are entitled to protection under the law,” Bello said.
The FCCPC had introduced the Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations 2025 (DEON) amid concerns over abusive practices in the digital lending industry, including harassment, data breaches and opaque lending practices.
Bello had said the regulations were intended to draw a line between innovation and consumer abuse.
“For too long, Nigerians have endured harassment, data breaches, and unethical practices by unregulated digital lenders,” Bello said when the regulations were introduced, adding “these regulations draw a clear line that innovation is welcome, but not at the expense of the rights and dignity of consumers, or the rule of law.”
The regulatory argument has therefore moved beyond whether consumers should be protected to how that protection should be delivered without creating conflicting mandates or raising the cost of digital services.
Aminu Maida, executive vice chairman of the NCC, had maintained during the height of the dispute that airtime credit falls within telecoms value-added services governed by the communications regulatory framework.
The position underscores the distinction between the two agencies: the NCC retains responsibility for telecommunications licensing and technical regulation, while the FCCPC maintains that it has a consumer-protection mandate that cuts across sectors.
For the Federal Government, the dispute also comes at a time when it is seeking to deepen Nigeria’s digital economy while reducing regulatory friction.
Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy minister, Bosun Tijani, has recently demonstrated the government’s recognition of the need for greater coordination among digital regulators. In July, he directed the NCC, NITDA and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission to defer implementation of certain cross-cutting digital regulations pending the development of a harmonised national policy framework.
The minister said the existing regulatory status quo should be maintained on issues undergoing inter-agency policy harmonisation, following a strategic meeting with the affected agencies.
That approach could become increasingly relevant to the airtime credit dispute, as digital products continue to blur the traditional boundaries between telecommunications, financial services and consumer protection.
Onoja said the airtime credit dispute exposed precisely this coordination problem, arguing that key government officials should have resolved the regulatory question before it reached the courts.
“Those four people should have sat down,” he said, referring to the communications minister, trade minister, NCC director-general and FCCPC director-general.
“This is going to lead to a substantial increase in costs for millions of Nigerians that could have been avoided if those four people had sat in the room,” he added.
The stakes are considerable. Airtime credit has evolved from a convenience product into a form of short-term liquidity for millions of prepaid subscribers, traders and small businesses.
The market is estimated at between N300 billion and N400 billion annually, according to industry estimates.
The disruption earlier this year, when major operators suspended the service amid the regulatory uncertainty, demonstrated the economic dependence of consumers on the facility.
Although Airtel and Globacom subsequently restored airtime credit services after the FCCPC suspended enforcement of the DEON regulations in compliance with a court order, the longer-term regulatory framework remains unsettled because WASPAN has appealed the July judgment.
For operators and investors, the immediate concern is therefore no longer simply whether airtime lending can continue, but what regulatory architecture will govern it.
For consumers, the question is ultimately how much that architecture will cost.
Onoja put it bluntly: “Yes. Yes, your cost will go up because of this extra regulatory cost added to the whole thing.”
He added that while the timing remained uncertain, the additional cost would eventually be reflected in prices.
With the appeal pending, the N400 billion market is consequently caught between two competing imperatives: stronger consumer protection and a regulatory environment that does not make digital credit more expensive or discourage investment.
The outcome of the legal battle could therefore have implications far beyond airtime credit, particularly for Nigeria’s broader attempt to build a larger digital economy without multiplying the regulatory costs businesses must bear.
Comments
Start the conversation about this story.