Deon, Optasia, and the Risky Precedent for Nigeria’s Digital Economy

Uchenna Asika

The legal dispute between the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over whether the Digital Electronic Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON) apply to airtime lending has grown into more than a regulatory quarrel.

Beyond the future of airtime borrowing, the case raises questions about whether Nigeria’s regulatory framework is becoming susceptible to policy distortions that erode investor confidence, weaken competition, and create uncertainty for businesses operating under the law.

The controversy is significant because it sits at the crossroads of technology, telecommunications, financial inclusion, foreign direct investment, regulatory governance, and public trust.

Optasia, through its Nigerian subsidiary Nairtime, has become the most visible participant in the debate. Founded in Nigeria in 2012, the company has expanded to more than 20 countries, making it one of the few technology-driven financial infrastructure firms with Nigerian roots that has successfully exported its services internationally.

By any objective measure, this should be seen as a Nigerian success story. The company employs Nigerians, pays taxes in Nigeria, operates under Nigerian laws, and has built a service used by millions of consumers. Yet much of the public discussion has shifted from compliance, consumer welfare, and competition to the ancestry of its founders.

This is a troubling development. If legally operating businesses can become targets because of their founders’ ethnic or ancestral backgrounds, Nigeria risks sending the wrong message to investors. The relevant questions should be straightforward: Is the company complying with the law? Is it paying taxes? Is it creating jobs? Is it providing a service that consumers value? If the answers are yes, the focus should remain on regulation and competition—not identity.

The FCCPC has earned credit for attempting to curb predatory digital lending. Many Nigerians suffered from abusive lending practices, harassment, privacy violations, and exploitative recovery methods. Regulatory intervention was necessary. Critics of DEON argue, however, that airtime lending was never the problem the regulations were designed to address. They contend that airtime advances differ fundamentally from digital cash loans and that extending DEON to cover airtime borrowing represents a significant expansion of the regulation’s original purpose. Whether that interpretation is correct will ultimately be decided by the courts.

But the broader policy concern remains.

Can regulations designed for one sector be extended to another without creating uncertainty for businesses that built their operations under a different regulatory understanding? That question matters not only for telecommunications companies but for every investor considering Nigeria.

Several questions continue to circulate within the telecommunications and technology sectors. Why were new entrants reportedly approved while legal disputes concerning the regulatory framework remained unresolved? What criteria were used in granting approvals? Were all market participants treated equally? Were adequate consultations conducted with industry stakeholders? What economic impact assessments informed the decisions?

These are legitimate public‑interest questions. They are not accusations. They are questions that deserve answers because public confidence in regulation depends on transparency. The controversy has inevitably drawn attention to officials whose responsibilities intersect with telecommunications and the digital economy. Among those whose offices have attracted public scrutiny is Idris Saliu Alubankudi, the Special Adviser to the President on Technology and Digital Economy.

Given the strategic importance of his office, questions about policy direction, regulatory coordination, and stakeholder engagement naturally arise. To be clear, the existence of public concern does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing. However, when significant sectors of the economy experience regulatory turbulence, public officials responsible for relevant policy areas have a duty to provide clarity and reassurance. The greatest risk in this controversy is not the outcome of the court case. The greatest risk is the signal being sent to investors. Nigeria is currently competing for capital against Kenya, Egypt, Rwanda, South Africa, Morocco, Ghana, and several emerging markets beyond Africa.

Investors can choose where to deploy their money. They look for stable rules, predictable regulations, and fair treatment. When successful businesses become entangled in prolonged regulatory uncertainty, investors begin asking uncomfortable questions. If today’s dispute affects airtime lending, what sector could be next? If a company can spend years building a business only to face changing regulatory interpretations, how secure are future investments? These questions matter because capital is mobile. Investment goes where certainty exists.

This debate is not just about corporations. It affects ordinary people. The driver who borrows airtime to contact customers. The trader who uses an airtime advance to complete a transaction. The student who needs data before receiving allowance money. The small business owner whose livelihood depends on uninterrupted connectivity. Millions of Nigerians use airtime lending because it solves a practical problem. Any regulatory intervention affecting such a large segment of the population should therefore be guided by evidence, transparency and measurable consumer benefit.

Nigeria’s future depends on attracting investment, encouraging innovation and rewarding enterprise. The country cannot afford to create an environment where successful businesses become vulnerable to uncertainty, where policy changes appear unpredictable, or where public debate drifts towards questions of ancestry rather than performance.

The DEON controversy should serve as an opportunity. An opportunity for regulators to demonstrate transparency. An opportunity for public officials to provide clarity. An opportunity for industry stakeholders to engage constructively.

* Mr. Asika, a public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja