By O’tega Ogra

The recent commentary titled “Facebook Nigeria Vs ARCON Judgment: Not About the Fine but Consumer Protection at Risk of Vulnerability” raises important questions about platform accountability, regulatory authority and the future of digital governance in Nigeria. It is a conversation worth having.

Every Nigerian should care about the accountability of global digital platforms operating in our jurisdiction and about how they are regulated. That conversation is about far more than Meta or ARCON. It is about consumer protection, regulatory certainty, investor confidence and the rule of law. Consumers deserve protection, and multinational companies that profit from the Nigerian market must respect Nigerian law. On these propositions there is no disagreement.

Where I respectfully differ is in the conclusion that the Federal High Court’s judgment weakens consumer protection or leaves Nigerians exposed. It does neither. It reinforces something more fundamental. In a constitutional democracy, no regulator, however well intentioned, may exercise powers beyond those granted by law. That is not a technicality. It is the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary administrative power. That principle protects consumers just as surely as it protects businesses.

The issue before the court was never whether consumers should be protected. It was whether the right institution was exercising the right powers in the right way. The Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria exists to regulate advertising practice, advertising content and marketing communications. It sets standards for advertisements, enforces professional compliance within the advertising ecosystem and shields the public from harmful or offensive advertising within that statutory framework. It is not Nigeria’s general consumer protection regulator.

That responsibility belongs principally to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, established by law to protect consumers, prohibit unfair business practices, promote competition and investigate abuse of consumer rights across every sector of the economy. The powers of a statutory regulator cannot be enlarged by implication or by the desirability of an outcome. They must be found within the four corners of the statute establishing that regulator.

The distinction matters. Modern economies work because institutions have clearly defined mandates. When those boundaries blur, uncertainty follows. Businesses no longer know which regulator holds what authority, consumers become confused, litigation replaces regulation and investment suffers. Nigeria does not need more regulators performing the same functions. It needs every regulator performing its own function exceptionally well.

Much has been made of the setting aside of ARCON’s ₦60 billion administrative fine. In truth, that aspect of the judgment merely reaffirmed a position Nigerian courts had already established. The imposition of punitive fines is a judicial function exercisable by a competent court or the appropriate tribunal where the law so provides. It is not an administrative shortcut. More importantly, the court did not pronounce that Meta, Facebook or any multinational technology company is beyond Nigerian law. It held that, on the evidence placed before it, ARCON failed to establish the legal basis upon which Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited could be held responsible for the acts attributed to Meta Platforms, Inc. A court can only determine the case presented before it. It cannot repair evidentiary deficiencies for a litigant.

The commentary suggests the relationship between Meta and Facebook Nigeria is commercially obvious and should therefore have been accepted by the court. Commercial reality and legal proof are not always the same thing. Courts decide cases on admissible evidence, not assumptions, however commercially obvious those assumptions may appear. Corporate liability is established through admissible documents, contractual relationships, regulatory filings, witness testimony and properly pleaded facts, not by public perception or internet searches. If ARCON’s case depended on demonstrating that Facebook Nigeria acted as the Nigerian operating arm of Meta Platforms, the burden of proving that relationship rested squarely with ARCON. Judges are impartial arbiters, not investigators retained to complete a regulator’s case. To argue otherwise invites a dangerous precedent whereby courts abandon neutrality whenever a regulator invokes the public interest. Today it may affect a global technology company. Tomorrow it could affect a Nigerian media organisation, an indigenous advertiser, an agency or a private citizen. The rule of law cannot be selective.

Nor can consumer protection become a licence for institutional overreach. A worthy objective does not expand statutory powers. Nigeria already possesses one of Africa’s most comprehensive regulatory ecosystems. The Central Bank regulates banking and payments. The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees the capital market. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission protects consumers and competition. The Nigeria Data Protection Commission regulates personal data.

The Nigerian Communications Commission supervises telecommunications. NAFDAC regulates foods, drugs and medical products. The Standards Organisation of Nigeria develops and enforces product standards. The Corporate Affairs Commission governs corporate registration and disclosure. The Federal Inland Revenue Service administers taxation. Each institution performs a distinct statutory role. Their mandates sometimes intersect, but they are not interchangeable.

The strength of Nigeria’s regulatory architecture lies precisely in this specialisation. Each institution is empowered to become an expert within its statutory remit while cooperating with others where mandates intersect. That is how mature regulatory systems function across the world.

Advertising regulation occupies an equally important place within that architecture. ARCON has a vital responsibility to ensure professional standards, ethical advertising and responsible marketing communications. But recognising the importance of that role should never require expanding it beyond what the National Assembly has prescribed. Mature regulatory systems are built on cooperation between institutions, not competition between them.

If gaps exist in Nigerian law regarding digital platforms, local corporate presence or service of process, the National Assembly should close them. That is the lawful remedy. What serves nobody is regulatory uncertainty, where overlapping mandates leave businesses guessing at compliance obligations, investment decisions stall and litigation becomes the default language of regulation. Strong regulation is not measured by the size of penalties announced at press conferences. It is measured by clarity of mandate, quality of investigation, respect for due process and whether regulatory decisions survive judicial scrutiny.

This institutional balance reflects one of the quieter but more consequential features of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reform agenda. His administration has largely resisted the temptation to interfere with regulators or dictate judicial outcomes. Regulators have been allowed to regulate. Courts have been allowed to adjudicate.

That is not administrative indifference; it is institutional confidence. It reflects the understanding that enduring economic reform is sustained by institutions that command public confidence, not by personalities or executive discretion. That independence, however, carries reciprocal responsibility. Institutions are expected not merely to act independently, but to act competently, proportionately and within the limits of their enabling statutes.

Strong institutions are not those that never lose in court. Strong institutions are those that learn from judicial scrutiny, refine their processes and return better equipped to discharge their responsibilities. That is how regulatory credibility is earned, and how investor confidence is sustained.

At a time when Nigeria is actively competing for domestic and foreign investment, regulatory certainty is no longer an abstract legal principle. It is an economic imperative. Investors do not merely assess tax rates or market size. They assess whether rules are clear, whether mandates overlap, whether approvals are predictable and whether disputes are resolved according to law. Every unnecessary jurisdictional conflict increases the cost of doing business. Every avoidable regulatory overlap introduces uncertainty.

Conversely, every institution that faithfully performs its statutory mandate strengthens confidence in Nigeria’s economy. In an increasingly competitive global economy, regulatory certainty has become a competitive advantage. Investors gravitate towards jurisdictions where the law is predictable, institutions respect their statutory boundaries and commercial disputes are resolved transparently. Nigeria should aspire to be one of those jurisdictions.

The Facebook Nigeria judgment should therefore not be remembered simply as another legal contest between a regulator and a multinational technology company. It should be remembered as an opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law, clarify institutional mandates and strengthen confidence in Nigeria’s regulatory framework.

The Association of Advertisers in Nigeria (ADVAN), as the collective voice of advertisers and brand owners, can play an important convening role in that process by encouraging dialogue among advertisers, agencies, media owners, digital platforms, regulators and policymakers. No industry benefits when its defining relationship with its regulator is perpetual litigation.

This is not a call for weaker regulation. It is a call for smarter regulation. It is a call for clearly defined statutory boundaries, mutual institutional respect, predictable enforcement and continuous dialogue. The objective should be a modern advertising ecosystem in which compliance is encouraged through clarity rather than uncertainty, and disputes are resolved through engagement wherever possible, with litigation remaining the exception rather than the norm.

As someone who has served both in government and within the organised private sector, I believe the time has come to draw a line under years of avoidable confrontation. The disputes that have strained relationships across the advertising ecosystem should not become permanent features of our industry. Through goodwill, principled leadership and respect for the rule of law, they can be resolved, allowing the industry to redirect its collective energy towards creativity, competitiveness, consumer trust and economic growth.

The advertising industry has spent too much time in court and too little time building the partnerships required for its future. Regulators, advertisers, agencies, media owners and digital platforms all have a shared interest in an ecosystem that is ethical, competitive, innovative and globally respected. That future will not be achieved through perpetual confrontation. It will be achieved through mutual respect, legal certainty and constructive engagement.

Ultimately, the strength of any regulator lies not in the breadth of the powers it claims, but in the credibility of the powers it lawfully exercises. Nigeria’s future will not be secured by stronger personalities or more aggressive regulators. It will be secured by stronger institutions—institutions that understand the limits of their authority, respect one another’s mandates and earn public confidence through competence, fairness and fidelity to the rule of law.

O’tega Ogra is the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Digital Communications, Engagement and New Media Strategy, a Vice President of the Association of Advertisers in Nigeria (ADVAN) and sits on the governing council of the World Federation of Advertisers. He writes from Abuja.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share