|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
EMEKA NNUBIA v. HONOURABLE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT & 2 ORS.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT
(LAGOS DIVISION)
(OGAZI, J)
FACTS
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) (the 2nd Defendant), by its letter dated 17 May 2024, informed MTN Nigeria Communications PLC (3rd Defendant) that it had initiated a Limited Initial Inquiry and Possible Prospective Investigation (LIIPPI) under its statutory mandate. The purpose of the inquiry was to assess certain corporate arrangements that may amount to contraventions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act. In furtherance of this mandate, the FCCPC requested the submission of a range of internal corporate documents from MTN Nigeria, including minutes of meetings, board resolutions, and records of extensions, among others. MTN Nigeria acknowledged the request and sought additional time to comply, prompting the FCCPC to grant extensions up to 24 June 2024.
Aggrieved by this regulatory move, Emeka Nnubia (Plaintiff), a shareholder of MTN Nigeria, commenced an action by filing an originating motion. He contended that the FCCPC lacked a justifiable basis for the inquiry and that its actions were ultra vires, particularly in seeking confidential corporate data. The Plaintiff also asserted that the information requested constituted personal data and was therefore not subject to disclosure under the law. On this basis, he sought judicial intervention to nullify the FCCPC’s summons, notices to produce, and any related regulatory steps. In reaction to the lawsuit, MTN Nigeria withheld compliance with the FCCPC’s summons, citing the pendency of judicial proceedings. One of the central questions arising for determination was: Whether the Honourable Minister of Trade, Industry and Investment, along with the FCCPC, had the lawful authority to demand documents, conduct investigations, and enforce compliance in matters concerning anti-competitive practices as they pertain to MTN Nigeria.
ARGUMENTS
The Plaintiff contended that the summons issued by the 2nd Defendant, was ultra vires and lacked a clear and legitimate statutory basis. He argued that the FCCPC failed to articulate any specific rationale justifying its demand for internal and highly sensitive documents from the 3rd Defendant, MTN Nigeria. Counsel submitted that the FCCPC’s request, if complied with, would contravene the Data Protection Guidelines by compelling the disclosure of trade secrets and proprietary information belonging to MTN Nigeria, as well as confidential data of third parties. He maintained that such disclosures would breach the rights of the data subjects and expose the 3rd Defendant to substantial commercial risks.
Further, Counsel argued that the regulatory powers which the 2nd Defendant seeks to exercise fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), as established under the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA). According to the Plaintiff, it is the NCC and not the FCCPC that possesses the legal competence to oversee, investigate, and enforce compliance concerning anti-competitive practices within the telecommunications industry. He emphasised that granting the FCCPC authority to proceed with its demands would result in the unlawful usurpation of the NCC’s statutory functions.
In response to the Plaintiff’s arguments, the 2nd Defendant maintained that its investigation was within the lawful ambit of its statutory mandate under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA). It emphasised that the scope of the inquiry was specific and targeted at evaluating possible anti-competitive agreements or practices by the 3rd Defendant, MTN Nigeria. The FCCPC argued that the investigation was not directed at the Plaintiff personally, nor was the Plaintiff the subject of the inquiry. As such, the information requested through the summons did not implicate any of the Plaintiff’s personal data or privacy rights as a shareholder.
The 2nd Defendant further submitted that the documents sought were within the regulatory purview of the FCCPC and did not constitute protected personal or third-party data that would ordinarily be shielded from lawful disclosure to a public authority. Counsel contended that the Plaintiff, being a mere shareholder, lacked the locus standi to bring the action in his personal capacity on behalf of the 3rd Defendant. It was argued that MTN Nigeria, as a legal entity with a distinct corporate personality, is capable of defending or asserting its own legal rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s attempt to cloak himself with standing to challenge the regulatory actions of the FCCPC on behalf of the company was inconsistent with the principle of corporate separateness.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving this issue, the Court affirmed the statutory authority of the 2nd Defendant to investigate and prohibit restrictive or unfair business practices that distort or hinder competition or amount to abuse of dominant market power in Nigeria. It held that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), being a later and more specific legislation, did not repeal the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) but rather limited the exclusivity of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) in matters relating to competition. The Court emphasized that the FCCPA establishes a concurrent regulatory regime and extends a collaborative mandate to the NCC in consumer protection and competition regulation.
Furthermore, the Court held that the FCCPC’s request for information and summons issued to MTN Nigeria were lawful and did not infringe on any data privacy rights. The Court noted that the information sought by the FCCPC did not involve personal data that could uniquely identify an individual or pertain to any sensitive or protected personal characteristics. Therefore, the request did not contravene the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, or any other data protection guidelines. The FCCPC’s actions were found to be within its lawful regulatory oversight functions.
Issue resolved in favour of the 2nd Respondent.
Emeka Nnubia, Esq, appears in person
Ikechukwu Joseph Egwu, Esq, and Ndidiamaka Benard Esq., for the Plaintiff
Abimbola Ojenike Esq., with Damilola Omotosho Esq., and Oluwatosin Atanranshe Esq., for the 2nd Defendant
Chidera Ezenwanne Esq., with Helen Okorie Esq., Chinonso Ekuma, Augustine Okafor , Esq., Damilola Raji Esq., and Oluyemi Adebo, Esq., for the 3rd Defendant
This summary is fully reported at (2025) 4 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.
