The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) argues that the suit is baseless and constitutes an abuse of court process.

The lawsuit, filed by Maduabuchi O. Idam Esq. on 29 April 2024 (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/563/2024), demands that Multichoice allow customers to roll over unused subscriptions. The case also lists the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) as defendants.

During proceedings on 19 February 2025, Multichoice’s counsel, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), opposed the case. The legal representatives of the FCCPC and NBC confirmed that they had filed counter-affidavits against the suit, while the AGF’s lawyer also confirmed submitting a motion on notice. 

The presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, asked the claimant whether he had received and responded to all submissions. He confirmed this but stated that further affidavits needed to be exchanged. The court then scheduled the hearing for 6 May 2025.

The AGF’s motion, dated 25 October 2024, insists that the case should be struck out as the claimant failed to establish any wrongdoing by the AGF. The AGF’s lawyer, Maimuna Lami Shiru, stated:

“The AGF is not a regulatory body in respect of the subject matter of the claim and has no business in the suit. The AGF is not a proper or necessary party to the suit. The originating process is premature and defective as it relates to the AGF.”

The AGF’s office further asserted that its role does not extend to regulating Multichoice or any other TV service provider in Nigeria. It also accused the claimant of filing the case without the necessary court approval.

Background

Multichoice has had repeated issues in Nigeria over its pricing structure in recent times. The company previously justified its subscription adjustments by pointing out factors such as exchange rate fluctuations, rising content acquisition costs, and increased electricity tariffs.

The FCCPC, while acknowledging its role in consumer protection, clarified that it does not directly regulate business pricing. The NBC also noted that a prior court ruling had limited its authority to intervene in such matters.

In 2024, a tribunal fined the company ₦150 million and ordered a one-month free subscription for violating interim orders. The ruling was later overturned after the case was withdrawn.

However, Multichoice recently announced a fresh price increase across all DStv and GOtv packages, effective 1 March 2025. The company has blamed previous subscriber losses on multiple price hikes, inflation, and economic challenges.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the order on Wednesday in a judgment on a suit filed by the Rivers State House of Assembly led by Martins Amaewhule.

Justice Abdulmalik held that the decision by Governor Siminalayi Fubara to present the Rivers State’s 2024 Appropriation Bill to a four-member Assembly, that was not properly constituted, should not be allowed to stand.

Financial allocations in Nigeria involve the government distributing resources across key sectors, including education, healthcare, infrastructure, and security.

The country follows an annual budget cycle, where the federal government presents a budget proposal to the National Assembly, outlining expected revenues and expenditures. Key revenue sources include oil and gas exports, various taxes, and non-oil revenues, with oil being the primary contributor.

Funds are allocated to states and local governments through the Federation Account, based on population, landmass, and social factors. While allocations aim to enhance education access, healthcare infrastructure, and national security, they often fall short of international benchmarks like UNESCO recommendations.

Challenges such as corruption, mismanagement, fluctuating oil prices, and overall economic instability limit effective resource utilization. The heavy reliance on oil revenue makes the economy vulnerable during downturns. Recent initiatives focus on diversifying revenue sources, improving budget transparency, and enhancing public financial management to optimize allocations and support sustainable economic growth.

The court also barred the Road Traffic Services from imposing fines on motorists. The judgment, delivered on October 2 by Justice Maha, stemmed from a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by human rights activist and public interest attorney Abubakar Marshal.

Justice Maha, in the judgment, agreed with the applicant’s contentions that there is no legal basis for the VIO and its officials to stop, impound, or confiscate vehicles or to levy fines against motorists.

The applicant, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023, sued the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, the Director, Directorate of Road Traffic Services, Mr Leo, the Area Commander, Directorate of Road Traffic Services (as at December 12, 2023) Onoja Solomon, Team Leader, Directorate of Road Traffic Services, Jabi Area command, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, as 1st to 5th respondents respectively.

Marshall in his originating motion on notice among others, had asked the court for a declaration that the “1st to 4th respondent under the control of the 5th respondent, herein are not empowered by a law or status to stop, impound or confiscate the vehicle of motorists or impose fine on motorists and doing so is wrongful, oppressive and unlawful as it violates the fundamental human right of such motorists to fair hearing, freedom of movement and presumption of innocence and therefore unlawful by virtue of section 6(6)(B) 35 (1)( 8) and (12) and 41 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and article 2(7) (b) 12 and 14 of the African Charter of human and peoples right”.

The court in its judgment, issued a restraining order against the respondents, preventing them and their agents from impounding or confiscating vehicles or imposing fines, labelling such actions as wrongful, oppressive, and unlawful.

Justice Maha further granted a perpetual injunction to protect the rights of Nigerians, ensuring their freedom of movement, presumption of innocence, and right to own property without lawful justification.

The court in its judgement held that “the 1st (Directorate of Road Traffic Services) to 4th Respondents under the control of the 5th Respondent (Minister of the Federal Capital Territory) are not empowered by any law or statute to stop, impound, confiscate the vehicles of motorists and or impose fine on motorists.”

The court also gave “an order restraining the 1st to 4th respondents either through their agents, servants and or assigns from impounding, confiscating the vehicle of motorists and or imposing fine on any motorist as doing so is wrongful, oppressive and unlawful by themselves.”

The court made an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents whether by themselves, agents, privies, allies or anybody acting on behalf of the 1st respondent from further violating the rights of Nigerians to freedom of movement, presumption of innocence and right to own property without lawful justification inter alia.