The ongoing legal battle between the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) has taken a fresh turn after the Federal High Court in Lagos issued a Form 45 notice warning of possible contempt proceedings over alleged disobedience of a court order.
The notice, issued in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/767/2026, was directed at the Executive Vice Chairman of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, following allegations that the commission failed to comply with an interim order earlier granted by the court on April 15, 2026.
Although the matter is still pending before the court, the issuance of Form 45 has drawn attention to one of the most powerful enforcement mechanisms available in Nigeria’s judicial system — contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of court orders.
Under Nigerian law, Form 45 is a formal notice issued by the court warning an individual or institution that failure to obey a subsisting court order could result in contempt proceedings, which may ultimately lead to sanctions, including imprisonment.
The notice issued by the Federal High Court was filed under Order IX Rule 13(1) of the Federal High Court Rules and stated that failure to comply with the court’s directive may attract committal proceedings.
The document partly read: “Take notice that unless you obey the directions contained in the order of this Honourable Court made on the 15th April, 2026, you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison.”
The development stems from an ongoing dispute over the enforcement of the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON Regulations) 2025 introduced by the FCCPC.
WASPAN had approached the court seeking to restrain the commission from enforcing the regulations against its members, arguing that aspects of the framework allegedly overlap with the statutory powers of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), particularly in relation to airtime lending and digital credit services.
According to court filings, the association contends that the FCCPC’s regulatory actions may exceed its legal mandate and interfere with areas traditionally supervised by telecommunications regulators.
The court subsequently granted an interim injunction restraining the commission from enforcing parts of the regulations pending the determination of the substantive suit.
That interim order, court records indicate, remains in force.
The latest Form 45 notice now raises broader legal and institutional questions about compliance with court orders by regulatory agencies and public institutions.
Legal observers note that contempt proceedings are among the judiciary’s strongest tools for enforcing obedience to court decisions and preserving the authority of the court.
In many cases, Form 45 serves as the first formal warning before possible committal proceedings are initiated against an alleged contemnor.
While the issuance of the notice does not amount to a finding of guilt or imprisonment order, it signals that the court considers the underlying order significant enough to warrant enforcement scrutiny.
The dispute also highlights the growing regulatory tensions emerging within Nigeria’s rapidly expanding digital financial and telecom ecosystem.
As fintech services, digital lending, airtime credit systems, and online consumer products continue to evolve, questions around which government agencies possess regulatory authority over specific sectors are increasingly ending up before the courts.
Industry stakeholders say the outcome of the suit could have wider implications for digital lending operators, telecom-linked financial products, and the future scope of FCCPC oversight in Nigeria’s digital economy.
The Federal High Court has fixed May 15, 2026, for hearing of the substantive suit as well as the FCCPC’s preliminary objection, while the interim order remains in effect.
For now, the matter remains before the court, but the issuance of Form 45 has already intensified attention on the case and renewed discussions around contempt proceedings, regulatory powers, and the enforcement of court orders in Nigeria.
