THE CAPTURED BENCH: HOW MULTICHOICE AND ITS ELITE LAWYERS WEAPONIZED NIGERIA’S COURTS TO CRIPPLE DEMOCRACY, DEFY REGULATIONS AND EXPLOIT THE NATION

Price hikes and silenced watchdogs

In March 2025, Nigerians woke up to find that DStv and GOtv subscription prices had shot up by 20-25%. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) immediately announced plans to investigate. Consumer advocacy groups were hopeful. Finally, someone would check whether Multichoice was abusing its market power, But once again, the courts stepped in. Multichoice’s lawyers, led by Moyosore Onibanjo, rushed to file an ex parte motion, claiming the FCCPC had no right to regulate pricing in a “free market.” Justice Omotosho issued an order that stopped the FCCPC from even looking into the matter. No debate. No hearing. Just a swift injunction.

For many Nigerians, this was the final straw. Complaints poured in on social media: “Why can’t our regulators do anything?” and “Is DStv above the law?” People couldn’t help noticing that every time an agency tried to act, a new court order appeared.

Corporate Leviathan

In Nigeria’s rapidly evolving media landscape, Multichoice Nigeria Limited, operators of DStv and GOtv, has long positioned itself as a market leader. However, recent revelations from the National Security Advisor’s office paint a starkly different picture: one of a corporate giant systematically deploying legal warfare to evade accountability, undermine regulatory bodies, and render agencies like the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) powerless. Over the past decade, Multichoice has weaponized Nigeria’s judicial system, securing a litany of court orders to stall investigations, invalidate regulations, and shield itself from sanctions. This report unravels the company’s calculated strategy to transform regulators and security agencies into “toothless bulldogs,” highlighting key cases, complicit judicial actors, and the broader implications for Nigeria’s regulatory framework.

In Nigeria, where media freedom once thrived, Multichoice Nigeria (owners of DStv and GOtv) have used legal tricks to dodge regulators and crush competition. What started as a success story turned into a corporate takeover of Nigeria’s broadcast industry. Multichoice’s legal team weaponized court technicalities to weaken government agencies, turning oversight into a joke.

The 2021 Default Judgment Debacle (FHC/ABJ/CS/1386/2021) Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Vs. NBC
It was a brisk morning in Abuja when news of Justice James Omotosho’s decision sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s broadcasting circles. In a case that had once promised to empower the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the judge instead dealt a stunning blow to the commission’s authority—one that many believe would change the fate of broadcast regulation in the country.

The Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights took the NBC to court. They contended that the commission’s sanctions were not only heavy-handed but also a violation of natural justice. Justice Omotosho had already handed down a sweeping judgment—a permanent injunction that barred the NBC from levying any fines on broadcast stations.

In a bid to overturn the ruling, the NBC filed a motion that the earlier judgment was reached without due process. The NBC had sought to sanction Multichoice for breaching broadcast codes. Justice Omotosho dismissed their plea, and critics argue this set a dangerous precedent: regulators could now be punished for procedural oversights while corporations enjoyed judicial leniency.

This case set a precedent for regulators’ procedural missteps being exploited to entrench corporate impunity. By framing the NBC as negligent, Multichoice and allied entities secured judicial cover to bypass accountability. The significance of the ruling in this case, is to the effect that a regulator does not have the powers to impose sanctions for a breach of a defined law or regulation, which is an anomaly.

The 2024 AGI Heist (FHC/ABJ/CS/652/2024) Multichoice Nigeria Ltd. & Details Nigeria Ltd. v. NBC)
In a sweeping 2024 judgment, Justice Omotosho again ruled in favor of Multichoice, declaring Section 2(10)(b) of the NBC Code ultra vires for mandating 2.5% of broadcasters’ gross income as Annual Gross Income (AGI). The court redefined “annual income” as revenue minus production costs, slashing Multichoice’s liability. It also upheld a disputed 2020 waiver agreement, binding the NBC to accept fixed payments far below statutory rates. The ruling not only invalidated critical NBC regulations but also rewarded Multichoice for years of underpayment, costing the federal government an estimated N32.5 billion in lost revenue. The pattern again was to invoke functus officio to block regulatory appeals and framing Multichoice as the “vigilant” victim against “indolent” agencies.

The Price Hike That Sparked a Legal Firestorm

FCCPC vs. MultiChoice: A Legal Battle Over Price Hike
On March 1, 2025, MultiChoice raised DStv and GOtv subscription fees by 20-25%, citing rising costs. The move, barely a year after the last increase, triggered public outrage, with many accusing the company of exploiting its market dominance.

However, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) had summoned MultiChoice and its CEO on February 27, to appear for an investigative hearing to explain its decision to increase rates starting on March 1. The commission expressed concerns about frequent price hikes, potential abuse of market leadership, and anti-competitive practices. However, instead of complying, MultiChoice filed an ex parte motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 3, seeking to block FCCPC’s intervention.

On March 12, Justice James Omotosho known for his pro-corporate rulings, granted Multichoice’s request. In his decision, he restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against the company pending the determination of the case. The ruling effectively shields Multichoice from regulatory scrutiny, allowing it to proceed with the price hike while the FCCPC remains powerless to act. Critics have slammed the decision as a blow to consumer rights and a victory for corporate impunity.

The 2025 Ex Parte Order: EFCC and NBC Gagged
In a recent court order granted in March 2025 and filed under Suit No: FHC/L/CS/179/25 (Multichoice & Details Nigeria Vs. EFCC, NBC & Anor) reveals Multichoice’s desperation to avoid scrutiny. The EFCC had launched an investigation into the company’s alleged underpayment of Annual Gross Income (AGI) and refusal to submit financial records dating back to 2014. Instead of complying, Multichoice accused the EFCC and NBC of “harassment” and violating its “fundamental rights.”

Justice Omotosho, without hearing the regulators’ side, issued a sweeping injunction:
a. Blocked Arrests: Barred the EFCC from inviting or detaining Multichoice staff.
b. Froze Investigations: Halted demands for financial documents, including evidence of AGI remittances.

The ruling effectively halts Nigeria’s anti-graft agency from probing (a) ₦32.5 billion in unpaid levies (as established in the 2024 AGI case) and alleged tax evasion tied to creative accounting of “programming costs.”

The Legal Playbook: How Courts Became Corporate Tools
Multichoice’s tactics follow a ruthless blueprint:

1. Forum Shopping: Multichoice repeatedly filed cases in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, where judges like Omotosho became reliable allies. Legal experts accuse the company of “judicial engineering”—handpicking courts to secure favourable rulings that redefine regulatory authority.

2. Killing Competition: When the NBC amended its code in 2022 to break Multichoice’s stranglehold on exclusive content (like Premier League rights), the company sued. Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa sided with Multichoice, declaring that “private contracts trump over public interest.” The decision cemented Multichoice’s monopoly, leaving smaller rivals unable to compete.

3. Redefining the Rules: In 2024, Multichoice challenged the NBC’s Annual Gross Income (AGI), arguing that its 2.5% fee should apply to profits, not gross revenue. Justice Omotosho agreed, slashing Multichoice’s contributions by billions of naira. The ruling starved the NBC of funds meant to support local broadcasters, widening the gap between corporate giants and struggling independents.

4. Pre-emptive Strikes: At the first hint of regulatory action, Multichoice files lawsuits to paralyze investigations. In 2025, when the Federal Competition and Consumer
5. Protection Commission (FCCPC) probed sudden price hikes for DStv subscriptions, Multichoice secured an exparte order from Justice Omotosho—blocking the inquiry before regulators could present their case. Critics called it a “judicial coup.”

Consequently, Nigeria’s judiciary stands accused of enabling corporate impunity. Justice
James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, emerges as the central figure in Multichoice’s legal fortress. Between 2021 and 2025, he presided over at least seven high stakes cases involving the company, each time ruling in its favour with near-scripted consistency.

The Fallout: Toothless Bulldogs and a Captured State
The cumulative effect of these rulings is a regulatory landscape where:
* NBC is financially crippled, unable to collect lawful levies or enforce content rules.
* FCCPC is barred from investigating blatant consumer exploitation.
* Judicial Complicity: Courts prioritize corporate rights over public interest, with certain judges becoming repeat enablers.

The lawyers behind the scenes
Behind all of Multichoice’s courtroom triumphs are two powerful Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs): M.J. Onigbanjo and Moyosore Onibanjo. Their tactics are legendary among legal circles in Abuja.

a. Onigbanjo the Codebreaker: Known for pre-emptive strikes, he files lawsuits against regulators just before they finalize audits or announce sanctions. By flipping the script, he forces agencies to defend themselves rather than go on the offensive.
b. Onibanjo the Ex Parte Maestro: Skilled at obtaining secretive court orders, he convinces judges that immediate action is needed—often without the regulators being present. Critics have called this “judicial malpractice.”

Their Playbook:
1. Judicial Engineering: Handpick courts and judges.
2. Weaponize Rights: Frame investigations as “rights violations.”
3. Delay Tactics: Adjourn cases for years (e.g., the EFCC suit is stalled until May 2025).

The Global Playbook – How Multichoice Replicated Its Nigerian Model and the Pushback
While Nigeria’s anti-graft agencies and courts remain paralyzed by legal maneuvers favouring Multichoice Nigeria, other African nations are mounting fierce resistance against the South African media giant’s monopolistic tactics. From Malawi’s bold expulsion of the company to South Africa’s billion-dollar fines, a pattern of defiance is emerging across the continent—one that starkly contrasts with Nigeria’s capitulation to corporate impunity.

Malawi’s Stand: “Follow the Rules or Leave”
In August 2023, Malawi became a beacon of regulatory courage. When Multichoice attempted to hike DStv subscription prices without approval, the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) secured a court injunction to block the increase. Multichoice retaliated by halting new subscriptions and threatening to exit the country. “We don’t negotiate with bullies,” declared MACRA Director General Daud Suleman. By September 2023, Multichoice withdrew entirely, abandoning 200,000 subscribers. “Malawi’s laws protect its people, not foreign profits,” Suleman added.

Sierra Leone: Slapped with a “Profiteering” Fine
Sierra Leone’s National Telecommunication Commission (NATCOM) took a similarly hardline stance in 2023, fining Multichoice R968,000 (Le250 million) for “unfairly profiteering” after the company blamed currency fluctuations for price hikes. NATCOM Chair Momoh Conteh accused Multichoice of “exploiting our people under the guise of exchange rates.” The regulator threatened to shut down DStv operations unless the fine was paid within a week—a move hailed by consumer groups.

Kenya’s Football Revolution: Breaking the Monopoly
In 2017, Kenya’s Competition Authority (CAK) ordered Multichoice to share exclusive English Premier League rights with rivals like Zuku TV, declaring the company’s monopoly “anticompetitive and destructive.” After a two-year legal battle, CAK Director Wang’ombe Kariuki announced: “No single entity can hoard content that belongs to the people.” The ruling opened Kenya’s airwaves to fair competition, a model now praised across East Africa.

South Africa’s $3.7 Billion Reckoning
In its home country, Multichoice faced its toughest blow yet. In 2017, South Africa’s
Competition Commission found the company guilty of anti-competitive practices, including hoarding sports rights to crush rivals. The penalty? A staggering 10% of annual revenue—$3.7 billion.

“No corporation is above the law here,” said Commissioner Tembinkosi Bonakele. By 2022, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) had clawed back another $500 million from Multichoice after uncovering years of profit under-declarations.

Nigeria: The Captured Market

While its neighbours fight back, Nigeria remains a glaring exception. In 2023, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) settled a N1.8tn ($1.27bn) tax claim for the Multichoice Nigeria operation and a $342m claim for value-added tax dispute with Multichoice for just N35.4bn ($37.3m) —a colossal and unjustified discount.

Breaking the stranglehold

In hushed conversations across government offices and civil society groups, there’s a growing belief that Nigeria must reclaim its regulatory powers—or risk sinking deeper into a state of corporate capture. Some propose that the National Judicial Council (NJC) investigate the repeated pattern of rulings in Multichoice’s favor. Others call for a new Broadcast Industry Reform Act that would strengthen the NBC’s authority. Also, the National Security Adviser must probe the question whether judges collude with Multichoice’s legal team and whether there is economic sabotage whereby preemptive lawsuits have been used to stifle Nigeria’s broadcast sector regarding the Multichoice’s ₦32.5 billion levy evasion.

Nigerians are frustrated by skyrocketing subscription fees and a sense of helplessness. Yet without coordinated action from the courts, lawmakers, and the executive branch, these calls for justice may remain just that—calls.

For now, Multichoice continues to operate in Nigeria with near-impunity, while the rest of the continent moves toward stricter enforcement. The central question remains: “Will Nigeria’s institutions stand up for the public interest, or will the nation remain a haven for corporate giants who know how to work the system”?

Until something changes, the courts will keep issuing orders, regulators will keep hitting walls, and ordinary Nigerians will keep wondering why the rules seem to favour the powerful over the people. The stage is set for a showdown—one that could either reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to fair governance or cement its status as a captured state under the gavel of judges and unconscionable practices of members of the Bar.