Airtel and Globacom have already restored similar services. MTN now follows after the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) suspended enforcement of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending (DEON) Regulations 2025.

The regulator introduced the policy in 2025 and classified airtime and data lending as consumer credit. This required telecom operators and their partners to obtain licences and meet compliance conditions.

In April 2026, MTN, Airtel, Globacom and 9mobile suspended airtime lending services to comply with the directive.

A court order issued on April 15, 2026, followed a case filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN), which represents value-added service providers. The order triggered further regulatory challenges and expanded the disruption.

By one estimate, the suspension affected about 40 million subscribers across Nigeria. Many of them depend on airtime borrowing for quick communication, small business operations and emergency use. The service sits within a market valued at about ₦400 billion.

MTN had initially taken a careful position. The company told investors it would not restart Xtratime unless the regulations were struck down or it received a clear directive to resume.

That position has now changed, after the FCCPC paused enforcement on May 22, 2026, MTN confirmed it will reinstate the service.

A company insider said: “The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has suspended the enforcement of DEON. To that extent, we will reinstate the service,”

Competition also had an impact. Airtel and Globacom moved earlier to restore their own airtime lending platforms once the enforcement pause began, increasing pressure on MTN to follow.

MTN Xtratime lending allows customers to borrow airtime or data and repay on later top-ups. The service generates fees for the company and supports overall network usage.

During an earnings call, MTN Nigeria chief executive Karl Toriola said the impact on usage was short-lived. He said:

“There was a short-term impact on consumption patterns, which lasted only a few days,” MTN Nigeria chief executive officer Karl Toriola said during the earnings call. “However, as time progressed, customers adapted. They either shifted to self-funded usage or found alternative ways to manage short-term needs.”

The company estimates that Xtratime fees contribute about 3% of total revenue. Airtime and data linked to the service account for roughly 20% of overall airtime distribution.

Tobechukwu Okigbo, MTN Nigeria’s chief corporate services and sustainability officer, also noted earlier concerns around resumption conditions.

He said: “First, we would require either a court ruling that sets aside the regulations empowering the FCCPC to license, which has not happened, or a clear directive instructing us to reinstate the service.”

MTN Nigeria recorded ₦5.2 trillion in revenue in 2025, equal to about $3.77 billion. It expects this to rise to ₦6.24 trillion, or about $4.52 billion, in 2026.

Despite the disruption, MTN maintains that airtime consumption patterns are still stable. The company argues that customers mainly changed how they pay, not how much they use services.

“I note that MTN does not expect Xtratime’s absence to derail performance targets,” an executive said in internal discussions around the update.

In its first quarter 2026 report, MTN said it is still onboarding approved partners and expects full restoration once the process is completed.

The company now treats the service as operationally important but not critical to overall performance.

This was after parties informed the court that issues surrounding the committal proceedings had been resolved.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa subsequently struck out the contempt application after counsel informed the court that issues surrounding the committal proceedings had been amicably resolved.

The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026, centred on WASPAN’s challenge to FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Guidelines, 2025 (DEON Regulations), which the association alleged unlawfully extended the commission’s regulatory powers into sectors already supervised by other agencies.

At the proceedings on Tuesday, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, led the plaintiff’s team alongside Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, while Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, represented FCCPC.

At the commencement of proceedings, counsel to FCCPC informed the court that discussions between the parties had resolved issues relating to the contempt proceedings, thereby paving the way for the hearing of substantive applications in the suit.

Following the development, Pinheiro formally withdrew the Form 49 contempt proceedings earlier filed by WASPAN, prompting the court to strike out the application.

The matter then proceeded to the hearing of FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.

Aboyade argued that DEON Regulations had been in operation since July 2025 and questioned why the plaintiff waited until now to challenge them.

She maintained that the regulations were introduced to protect consumers and further contended that WASPAN failed to comply with statutory pre-action notice requirements before instituting the suit.

Pinheiro, however, opposed the objection, arguing that FCCPC relied on factual allegations unsupported by affidavit evidence.

According to him, issues relating to delay and procedural non-compliance cannot validly be raised through mere written submissions without evidential backing.

He further argued that constitutional provisions guaranteeing citizens access to the courts overrode technical objections relating to pre-action notices, particularly where a litigant alleged imminent regulatory harm.

Pinheiro also accused FCCPC of adopting inconsistent legal positions by challenging the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously seeking judicial reliefs from the same court.

On the substantive issues, WASPAN urged the court to nullify portions of DEON Regulations, contending that FCCPC exceeded its statutory mandate.

The association stated that the commission was attempting to exercise regulatory powers already vested in Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) under existing laws.

WASPAN maintained that subsidiary legislation could not stand where it conflicted with Acts of the National Assembly.

In response, FCCPC defended its powers, insisting that its enabling law grants the commission authority across sectors where consumer protection issues arise.

Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings were entitled to formulate independent legal issues in defence of claims brought before the court.

During final submissions, the plaintiff challenged documentary exhibits tendered by FCCPC, stating that the materials lack evidential credibility and fail to establish any direct nexus between alleged activities of “loan sharks” and members of WASPAN.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Allagoa adjourned the matter until July 20, 2026, for judgement.