The Federal Government has fixed October 7, 2025, for the arraignment of Multichoice Nigeria Chairman, Adewunmi Ogunsanya, and Managing Director, John Ugbe, over alleged violations of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.
The case, brought by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), will be heard before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The date was set after the commission’s counsel, Chizenum Nsitem, sought an adjournment due to the defendants’ absence, citing improper service of court documents.
In total, nine individuals, including six senior Multichoice officials, are expected to be arraigned alongside the company. They include Fhulufhelo Badugela, CEO of Multichoice Africa Holdings; Retiel Tromp, CFO for Africa; Keabetswe Modimoeng, Group Executive for Corporate Affairs; Adebusola Bello, Director; Fuad Ogunsanya; and Gozie Onumonu, Head of Regulatory Affairs.
Multichoice Nigeria is named as the first defendant, with the individuals listed as second to ninth defendants. The charge sheet includes seven counts. In the first count, Multichoice is accused of failing to appear before the FCCPC on March 6 in response to a summons issued on February 25, contrary to Section 33(3) of the FCCP Act. In the sixth count, the defendants are alleged to have obstructed FCCPC investigations by refusing to provide requested documents, in violation of Section 110 of the Act.
The charges follow Multichoice’s recent price hikes for its DStv and GOtv services, which prompted an FCCPC probe into potential anti-competitive behaviour and abuse of market dominance. The commission had summoned the company to justify the increases and warned of sanctions if found in violation of fair market principles.
Earlier, the company filed a suit seeking to block the FCCPC from proceeding with administrative actions. Justice Omotosho dismissed the case, describing it as an abuse of court process, citing an earlier suit filed by consumer rights advocate Festus Onifade that already involved both parties.
The FCCPC maintains that it will proceed with regulatory enforcement should the company fail to offer a satisfactory explanation for the price adjustment.
