The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) remains relatively unknown to many Nigerians, despite its continuing work as the primary regulator charged with protecting consumer rights and promoting fair competition. Despite operational challenges, the Commission has pressed ahead with its mandate of holding manufacturers, sellers and service providers accountable. Onikepo Braithwaite and Jude Igbanoi spoke with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Tunji Bello, about the Commission’s activities and how it executes its mandate
Many Nigerians don’t know much about the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and its mandate. Kindly, enlighten the public on what FCCPC does and your mandate as its CEO?
The Commission evolved from the Consumers Protection Council (CPC), by virtue of the FCCP Act that was passed by the National Assembly in 2018. The old CPC was set up by Act No. 66 of 1992 under the military, but commenced operations in 1999. The new Act expanded the mandate of the Commission by adding the regulation of the Nigerian market, to make it a dual mandate. I was appointed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR in July 2024. As the CEO/EVC, my job is to oversee the day to day operations of the Commission.
FCCPC is often described as both a competition authority and a consumer-protection agency. In practice, which of those two mandates now consumes more of the Commission’s time and resources, and why?
Obviously, the consumer protection mandate is more taxing, in the sense that it is actually a responsibility to champion the rights of consumers of goods and services. Everyone is a consumer. In terms of numbers, we have more consumers than businesses. We operate an online portal through which consumers can lodge complaints, and we step in to ensure that they get justice. We receive hundreds of complaints daily through our offices spread across the country, aside the portal. Some of the cases are easily resolved, by way of mediation by us. But, in many instances, we end up in court by instituting cases against the recalcitrant ones. Of course, this costs us money and time. Our surveillance and investigation department gets involved by following leads, or intelligence received to bust unwholesome activities.
We have an Anti-Competitive Practices department, which handles cases involving infraction of best practices in commercial undertakings. We also have a legal department comprising Lawyers, who handle the cases in court. But, in many instances, particularly in areas involving technicality, we have to hire external Lawyers to prosecute some cases. All of this cost us money.
How have you coped delivering on both mandates?
Well, like I just enumerated, the two mandates are quite challenging. But, we are giving both our best shot. At the Commission, we are lucky to have a crop of personnel that are very dedicated, and also well motivated. Within the limit of resources available to us, we ensure that they are exposed to constant training, both locally and internationally. So that they are equipped with knowledge that is usually very technical in nature, as well as get conversant with trends in their respective fields.
Two years into your tenure, what is the single most important institutional change at the FCCPC that a consumer in Lagos, Kano or Port Harcourt would actually feel?
I believe we have been able to put the issue of consumer rights, on the front burner. Just last year, we received a couple of recognitions from some respected media organisations. In one particular citation read on the Award Night, one of them stated that the honour was in recognition of the passion we have infused into consumer advocacy, such that violators are being made to face stiff sanctions more and more for the first time in our history. With all modesty, I believe we have given hope to the ordinary Nigerian, that there will be consequences for violators of their rights once a solid case is established, at no cost to the petitioner.
Many Stakeholders and sister organisations have, over the past few years, raised a needful alarm that possibly up to 65% of consumable products and medication in the country are either fake, adulterated or substandard. Despite the fact that some countries are notorious for manufacturing and exporting fake and substandard products to Nigeria, even in collusion with unscrupulous Nigerian businessmen, there doesn’t appear to be a concerted effort and will to arrest this trend, and lives are being wasted everyday as a result of this. What is your Commission doing about this?
I do not know how you arrived at your figure of 65%, but it is not a figure that the Commission can independently authenticate or verify without factual evidence. The prevalence of substandard and counterfeited products varies considerably by product, location, sampling method and the particular study involved.
That said, I however, will not deny that we do not have the challenge of fake products. The problem is real, and the Commission takes it very seriously. Through market surveillance, inspections, sampling, laboratory testing, investigation and enforcement, we work to identify unsafe, counterfeit, adulterated, misleading or otherwise non-compliant products, and remove them from the market.
The Commission also works with sector-specific regulators, particularly NAFDAC and SON, because product safety and standards are a shared regulatory responsibility. Our interventions against misleading labelling, re-bagging of products and other unsafe practices, demonstrate our commitment to battle this menace.
How does your Council collaborate with sister agencies, like NAFDAC, Manufacturers of Nigeria (MAN) and other stakeholders in this battle against fake, substandard products?
The FCCPC does not work in isolation. With NAFDAC, for example, we collaborate on market surveillance, investigation, seizure and removal of harmful or substandard food, drugs and other regulated products. The two agencies also renewed their consumer protection MoU in May 2026, to strengthen coordination.
With standards and industry stakeholders, including SON and manufacturers, the approach includes information sharing, compliance engagement, standards awareness and joint investigation where there are indications of violations.
The objective is simple: prevent unsafe products from reaching consumers in the first place and, where they do, identify and remove them as quickly as possible.
The Commission repeatedly says it is “not a price-control board”. How do you draw the line, in law and in practice, between investigating anti-competitive pricing and being accused of trying to fix prices in a deregulated market?
The distinction is fundamental. The Commission does not tell a business what price to charge, simply because the price is high.
Businesses in a deregulated market, are generally free to determine their prices independently. What the Commission investigates, is whether the price or the process by which it was arrived at is the result of conduct prohibited by law, such as price-fixing, preferential discriminating or exploitative pricing, collusion, abuse of dominance, restrictive agreements, misleading pricing or other anti-competitive conduct.
Why did Uber exit from Nigeria? Uber’s exit triggered an inquiry into unfulfilled services.
Uber has not publicly stated that there was one specific regulatory, or market-related reason for its decision. The company said it had conducted a review of its operations, and decided to wind down its Nigerian and Ugandan operations effective September 2, 2026.
The Commission is not speculating, about the reason for the exit. Our immediate concern is what the exit means for consumers and other affected parties, particularly whether any services or obligations remained unfulfilled when operations ceased. Of course, if any is established, they will be made to answer.
Beyond that one company, what is the Commission’s doctrine on platform exits: deposits, unused credits, driver and rider claims, and data left behind?
A company is entitled to make legitimate business decisions, including leaving a market. But, when a business does exit, it does not automatically extinguish obligations already owed to consumers.
Where consumers have paid for services that were not delivered, the question of refunds or other appropriate redress arises. Outstanding credits, deposits and other consumer claims must therefore, be properly addressed.
Kindly, take us through your Commission’s procedure of treating complaints from consumers. Ordinary Complainants still say the process is slow, online-first, and hard to use if you are not literate or do not live in a State capital.
The process begins, ordinarily, with the consumer first giving the business an opportunity to resolve the complaint. Where that fails, the consumer can approach the Commission with the details of the transaction, the business involved, supporting documents and the redress being sought.
The Commission now operates a digital complaint-resolution platform which allows complaints to be received, assigned, investigated, tracked and resolved electronically. But, we recognise that not every Nigerian is digitally literate, or has reliable internet access. This is why complaints can also be submitted, physically, at our Zonal and State offices. We also have telephone channels, through which consumers can seek assistance.
What is the Commission doing to make redress reachable for a trader in an semi-urban market, or a pensioner on a feature phone?
Consumer protection cannot be designed, only for people with smartphones and reliable internet access.
Recently, we established three new offices, in Kaduna, Oyo and Plateau States. We did this with the primary intention of bringing the Commission’s presence closer to consumers, especially at the grassroots.
As I mentioned earlier, consumers are allowed to walk into any of our offices to physically register their complaints, and they will be promptly attended to.
The direction of our focus, is towards a more accessible, multi-channel complaint system, online, physical and assisted, rather than an online-only system.
Unsafe or underspecified building materials have been linked to structural failures. Is the FCCPC prepared to treat a systematically undersized rod or adulterated cement as a consumer protection offence with personal liability for directors, or will that remain solely a SON/standards matter?
SON has the specialised mandate for standards, while we, at the Commission, have a broader consumer protection mandate. Where a product sold to consumers is unsafe, defective, falsely represented or otherwise violates consumer rights, the FCCPA may apply in addition to the relevant standards legislation.
The FCCPA expressly places obligations on businesses to ensure that products are safe for their intended use, and prohibits the sale or distribution of products that do not comply with applicable safety or health requirements.
The recent MoU with NMDPRA is meant to tackle cartel behaviour, price-fixing, under-dispensing and adulteration in a deregulated downstream market. What can the FCCPC do that NMDPRA, as technical and pricing regulator, cannot?
The two institutions have different, but complementary mandates.
NMDPRA has the specialised regulatory responsibility, for the petroleum industry. The FCCPC brings the competition and consumer protection perspective.
For example, where there is evidence of cartel behaviour, price-fixing, abuse of dominance, market allocation, restrictive agreements, misleading pricing, under-dispensing or other conduct that undermines competition or consumer rights, the Commission has a statutory role to investigate and take appropriate action.
The recently signed MoU with NMDPRA further strengthens this work through joint surveillance, information sharing and coordinated enforcement.
And, what will success look like six months from now?
Success should be measured by outcomes, not simply by the number of meetings or press releases.
We expect to see stronger market intelligence and information sharing; faster identification of anti-competitive conduct, more effective action against under-dispensing and product-quality violations, better complaint and reporting mechanisms, improved compliance by operators, and clearer evidence that consumers are receiving the benefits of a more transparent and competitive petroleum market.
The Commission investigated alleged airline ticket price-fixing around the 2025 Yuletide. What is the status of that file, and will the public see a reasoned decision with findings of fact, or only a press statement?
The Commission has released an interim report, following its review of domestic airline fares during the 2025 Yuletide period.
The interim findings identified patterns requiring further examination. The Commission stated that it would conduct further structural and route-level analysis, before determining the next appropriate steps. Therefore, the matter should not be presented as a concluded finding, until the investigation is completed.
Where the Commission reaches a final determination, it will communicate same, to the public, on the basis of established facts and applicable law. But, suffice to say that, our intervention has sent a strong message to airline operators that price gouging or fixing will no longer be tolerated.
Even today, Nigerians are complaining that flight tickets are too expensive. Have you looked into this? What can be done about this seeing as air travel may be the best alternative, given the poor condition of some of our road travel routes and insecurity?
The Commission is aware of concerns, regarding the cost of air travel. However, it is important to distinguish the Commission’s role, from the broader regulation of the aviation sector. The Commission’s concern is principally whether pricing practices involve conduct that may breach competition or consumer protection laws, such as price-fixing, collusion or other anti-competitive practices. The Commission does not regulate, or determine airline fares.
Airfare levels are influenced by a range of sector-specific factors, including operational cost, aviation charges, foreign exchange, fuel, aircraft availability and capacity among others. These are matters that fall substantially within the broader regulatory framework for civil aviation and are therefore, better addressed by the sector regulator, NCAA.
The Commission will, however, continue to intervene where there is evidence of conduct that raises competition or consumer protection concerns, while working with the relevant aviation authorities to ensure that the interests of air travellers are adequately protected.
The issue of the price of fuel too, FCCPC appears to have been quiet, despite the people’s cry that fuel prices are prohibitive
The Commission has not been silent on this issue. In June 2026, following surveillance of the downstream petroleum market, the Commission raised concerns that reductions in crude prices were not being adequately reflected in some downstream prices, and stated that it would act against profiteering where the evidence supported intervention.
The key point, again, remains that the Commission does not regulate or approve pump prices in the deregulated market. NMDPRA remains the sector regulator. Our responsibility is to determine whether market participants are not engaging in conduct that is anti-competitive, deceptive, exploitative otherwise prohibited by law.
What internal safeguards exist so that a penalty is proportionate, reasonable, and appealable, rather than a tool of regulatory surprise? Administrative penalties are not intended to be regulatory surprises
The FCCPA provides punishment for specific offences. The Commission has also developed Administrative Penalties Regulations pursuant to the FCCPA, that provides a framework for determining penalties. The methodology considers factors including the nature and type of violation, the base amount, duration of the violation and other aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
There are also procedural safeguards, including the opportunity for affected parties to respond during regulatory proceedings. Importantly, decisions of the Commission can be challenged through the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, in accordance with the law. So, that gives anyone accused a chance to challenge our decision, in line with the natural tenets of justice.
Several States now have, or are creating, competition and consumer protection agencies. What is the proper division of labour between the FCCPC and a State agency, and how will double jeopardy or forum-shopping be avoided?
Section 104 of the FCCPA 2018 is clear that, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law and subject to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the provisions of the FCCPA shall prevail in matters relating to competition and consumer protection. Consequently, the Commission takes the lead in matters within the scope of competition and consumer protection as provided under the Act.
State agencies can carry out consumer protection activities in collaboration with us, but are subject to the supervision of the Commission. However, it is important to note here that, the FCCPC has an exclusive competition regulatory mandate.
Collaboration at the State level, is key. As a matter of fact, some authorities at the subnational level have reached out to us to work together. For instance, the Lagos State Consumers Protection Agency, signed an MOU with us recently. That is to tell you the sort of cooperation that is emerging.
By working closely with State agencies and other relevant stakeholders, we can ensure that regulatory efforts are coordinated and, most importantly, that consumers are protected wherever they live or do business.
Does the Commission have a system of protecting whistle-blowers?
Yes. The FCCPC Investigative Corporation and Assistance Rules and Procedures 2021, and the FCCPC Corporate Leniency Rules of the FCCPA 2018, provide mechanisms through which individuals can provide information, including anonymously, in some peculiar appropriate circumstances.
The Commission particularly encourages people with credible information about anti-competitive conduct and consumer rights abuses, to come forward. Such information can be extremely valuable in detecting conduct and practices, that would otherwise be difficult to uncover.
To what extent has your training as a Lawyer and Journalist helped in your work?
The two disciplines complement each other remarkably well.
Legal training provides an understanding of statutes, evidence, due process, rights and regulatory obligations. Journalism, on the other hand, teaches you to ask questions, verify information, simplify complex issues and communicate with different audiences.
At the FCCPC, communication is particularly important, because competition and consumer protection issues can be highly technical. My responsibility is not only to understand what the Commission is doing, but also to explain it clearly to consumers, businesses, policymakers and the media.
Ultimately, both professions demand the same basic discipline: establish the facts, understand the issues and communicate them clearly and responsibly.
Thank you, Mr Bello.