A Federal High Court ruling in Abuja has declared that it is legal for the leading and biggest airline in the entire West Coast of Africa, Air Peace, to peacefully share with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) those parameters and their metric details as fairly considered by the airline in fixing air fares in Nigeria.
Consequent to the court pronouncement that priceless and cherished information hitherto thought to be sacred and should never be exposed to a third party and anyone that does not belong to the airlines’ inner caucuses, Justice Fatimat Murtala Nyako has debunked it by pronouncing that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, FCCPC, should be allowed to merely investigate parameters employed in generating air fares.
The court agreed that FCCPC is not a regulator and does not have such powers to regulate any particular material in aviation. Still, it should be allowed to do its statutory duty of investigating aspects that impact the general concerns of consumers, nay the general public.
Hence, Justice Fatimat Murtala Nyako dismissed the suit filed by Air Peace Limited challenging the Commission’s authority of the FCCPC to investigate complaints concerning possible exploitative ticket pricing.
The latest judicial interpretation by Justice Nyako arose from a suit filed by Air Peace in 2025, following the Commission’s request for information from Air Peace in January 2025, after a widespread complaint from consumers over substantial increases in airfares on certain domestic routes in December 2024.
Air Peace argued that the Commission lacked authority to inquire into airfare pricing unless the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had first invoked the price regulation provisions of the FCCPA.
The airline therefore sought declarations that the Commission lacked authority to investigate the matter, together with orders perpetually restraining it from doing so.
However, Justice Nyako rejected those arguments. She held that the Commi
ssion acted within its investigative powers under Sections 17, 32 and 33 of the FCCPA when it sought information from Air Peace in response to consumer complaints.
The court considered the request to be part of a lawful investigation and dismissed the argument that it amounted to the exercise of statutory price regulation or price control powers under Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the Act.
It stated that the Commission did not direct Air Peace to reduce its fares, prescribe a pricing formula, impose any price or declare the airline’s fares unlawful.
The Court further held that accepting Air Peace’s interpretation would effectively prevent the Commission from investigating complaints relating to pricing, unless the President had first invoked Section 88 of the FCCPA.
Such an interpretation, the Court found, would undermine the Commission’s investigative powers whenever pricing complaints arose and could not have been the intention of the legislature.
Reacting to the judgment, the Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, described the decision as an important judicial affirmation of the Commission’s statutory responsibility to investigate market conduct where there are reasonable grounds to believe consumers or competition may be adversely affected.
“The Court has again affirmed an important principle under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act. Investigating consumer complaints is fundamentally different from regulating prices. The FCCPC neither sought to fix nor regulate Air Peace’s fares. It simply exercised its lawful authority to obtain information as part of an investigation into a matter of legitimate consumer concern.
“An investigation is a fact-finding process. It is neither a finding of liability nor an enforcement action. Every responsible regulator must be able to inquire into credible complaints affecting consumers and markets without those inquiries being misconstrued as findings of liability, enforcement action or price regulation.”
He said the judgment provides important judicial clarity on the scope of the Commission’s investigative powers while confirming that the exercise of statutory price regulation powers remains governed by the separate legal framework established under the FCCPA.
Mr. Bello reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to exercising its statutory mandate fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rule of law.
About Post Author
