WASPAN Calls on FCCPC to Follow Court Orders and Denies Allegations in DEON Litigation

Bennett Oghifo

The Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) has urged the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to fully comply with existing court orders and to stop what it calls attempts to misrepresent the ongoing litigation over the Digital Economy Operations Network (DEON) Consumer Lending Regulations 2025.

In a statement from its Chairman of Regulatory and Partnership, Osa Umweni, WASPAN expressed concern about reports published in national newspapers on 6 June 2026 that quoted FCCPC sources making claims it said distorted the parties involved in the case and the substance of the dispute before the Federal High Court.

The association said it was necessary to set the record straight in the public domain to counter what it described as misleading narratives about the litigation.

WASPAN clarified that it, representing Nigerian value‑added service providers, filed Suit No. FHC/L/CS/760/2026 in the Federal High Court in Lagos.

It noted that the case is being represented by Kemi Pinheiro OFR, SAN, LLD, FCIArb., of Pinheiro LP.

WASPAN recalled that on 15 April 2026, Justice Ambrose Lewis‑Allagoa granted four interim injunctions restraining the FCCPC from enforcing or implementing the disputed provisions of the DEON Regulations against WASPAN members.

According to WASPAN, the court orders also barred the commission from interfering with the services of its members, imposing sanctions for non‑compliance, or issuing directives under the regulatory framework pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.

WASPAN stated that although the FCCPC applied on 28 April to have the injunctions discharged, the court declined the request, leaving the orders in full force and effect.

The association rejected suggestions that the lawsuit was initiated by a foreign entity seeking to frustrate regulatory reforms in Nigeria’s consumer lending sector, calling such claims false and contrary to the facts before the court.

According to the statement, WASPAN comprises Nigerian‑registered companies that hold valid licences issued by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). The litigation was instituted to safeguard the rights and business interests of its members and the millions of Nigerians who rely on their services.

“Any suggestion to the contrary is a deliberate misrepresentation of the court record,” the association said.

WASPAN also raised concerns over reports indicating that the FCCPC had increased the number of operators approved under the DEON framework from five to nine firms, despite publicly announcing the suspension of DEON enforcement on 22 May 2026.

The association noted that the commission had described the suspension as compliance with the court’s directive, making subsequent actions under the same framework difficult to reconcile with that position.

It argued that the continued granting of commercial rights under a regulatory regime that remains subject to judicial restraint and administrative suspension raises important questions regarding the FCCPC’s commitment to its undertakings before the court and the Nigerian public.

WASPAN maintained that respect for judicial authority is fundamental to the rule of law and urged the commission to demonstrate compliance not only through public declarations but also through its actions.

The association stressed that court orders are binding directives that must be obeyed by all parties, regardless of convenience or institutional interests.

“A court order is not a communications instrument to be acknowledged when convenient and disregarded when inconvenient,” the statement said, adding that public officials are personally accountable for adherence to judicial directives.

Beyond the legal dispute, WASPAN accused the FCCPC of using public platforms to attack and delegitimize industry associations and their members for exercising their constitutional rights to seek judicial protection.

The association insisted that approaching the courts for redress is a constitutionally guaranteed right and should not be portrayed as an attempt to obstruct regulatory reforms or public policy objectives.

It further emphasized that no government agency possesses the authority to punish or stigmatize individuals or organizations for pursuing lawful remedies through the judicial process.

Reaffirming its commitment to collaboration with regulatory institutions, WASPAN said it remains open to constructive engagement with the FCCPC and other stakeholders on issues relating to consumer protection, innovation, and market development.

However, it stressed that such engagement must be conducted within the framework of the law, with due respect for judicial decisions and an unwavering commitment to factual accuracy.

The association concluded that public discourse on the matter should be guided by verifiable facts rather than narratives capable of prejudicing public opinion against parties whose rights are already under judicial protection.