By Miriam Humbe
The case for more accountability in medical practice in Nigeria has been strengthened with the ruling of Abuja Federal High Court affirming the powers of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate complaints by patients.
Ondaje Ijagwu, the FCCPC’s Director, Corporate Affairs disclosed this in a statement signed on Tuesday.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Abuja Federal High Court on April 15, following a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/1019/2021) filed by Life Bridge Medical Diagnostic Centre Ltd challenging the powers of FCCPC to investigate complaints involving healthcare services rendered to consumers.
In the suit, the plaintiff had sought declarations that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate complaints bordering on alleged medical negligence, arguing that the FCCPC could not act without first concluding a concurrent jurisdiction arrangement with the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN).
In the judgment, Justice Nwite rejected those claims in their entirety. He held that the plaintiff, being a commercial entity providing diagnostic services for reward, is an undertaking within the meaning of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (FCCPA), stressing that healthcare services fall within the category of services subject to consumer protection oversight under the Act.
The Court further held that where a complaint borders on consumer satisfaction, such issues may fall within the Commission’s consumer protection mandate, notwithstanding that the sector is also professionally regulated.
The Court recognised a clear distinction between the professional regulation and discipline of medical practitioners, which remains within the remit of relevant professional bodies, and consumer protection oversight relating to the quality, fairness, standards, and treatment received by consumers of healthcare services, which falls within the mandate of the FCCPC.
Justice Nwite also held that Section 105 of the FCCPA, which provides for coordination among regulators, does not constitute a condition precedent to the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction.
According to Justice Nwite, the absence of any formal agreement with another regulator does not extinguish or suspend powers expressly conferred on the FCCPC by the statute.
The court further ruled that ethical obligations such as patient confidentiality do not override lawful statutory investigative powers exercised in the public interest and in accordance with due process.
Reacting, the Executive Vice Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, described the judgment as a symbolic affirmation that consumers are entitled to protection and lawful redress in all sectors where services are provided for value, including healthcare.
Mr. Bello stated that the decision affirms the principle that sector-specific professional regulation and consumer protection oversight are distinct statutory functions that can operate side by side in the public interest.
He noted that the Commission’s role is not to replace professional bodies or sector regulators, but to ensure that consumers who pay for services are treated fairly and receive standards consistent with law.
According to him, the judgment confirms that no commercial service sector is beyond lawful consumer protection accountability.
He added that the FCCPC remains committed to constructive engagement with healthcare providers, professional bodies, regulators, and stakeholders to promote quality service delivery, accountability, and stronger consumer confidence.
