Connect with us

Opinion

Facebook Nigeria vs ARCON’s judgment: Not about fine but consumer protection at risk of vulnerability

Published

on

Facebook

By Ewa Izuchukwu,

It’s no longer news that the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has recently set aside the ₦60 billion regulatory fine the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) impose on Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited (FNOL) in October 2024. Hon Justice Yelim Bogoro’s decision in suit FHC/L/CS/2205/2024 has been reported widely in the days since, and much of that reporting has fixated on the size of fine, sixty billion naira which, as expected will make the headlines.

Advertisement

Read more: Court Confirms ARCON’s Oversight Powers on Outdoor Advertising

But the fine itself is close to old news, and any editorial honestly reckoning with this judgment has to say so plainly. As far back as April 2025, Justice Akintayo Aluko, sitting in the same Federal High Court in Lagos, had already settled whether ARCON may impose fines directly.

In Digi Bay Limited (trading as Betway Nigeria) v. ARCON, Justice Aluko held that a fine is a judicial act reserved for a competent court or the Advertising Offences Tribunal, not an administrative agency, and declared ARCON’s fine against Betway unconstitutional and void.

ARCON appears to have absorbed that lesson in the cases that followed including Godec Power Nigeria Ltd. v. ARCON in November 2025, Watercress Hotel International Limited v. ARCON in June 2026, as the agency confined itself to regularisation of exposed unapproved adverts and Advertising Tribunal referrals.

Advertisement

By the time Facebook Nigeria’s case came up for judgment, that question had already been asked and answered a year earlier. Voiding the fine was, by that point, close to a formality.

Which is precisely why the fine is the least interesting part of Justice Bogoro’s judgment, and why the media narrative being pushed largely missed the real story.

The issues that ought to be commanding attention are the fourth and fifth decisions of the Federal High Court which set out to determine whether Meta Platforms Inc. and Facebook Nigeria Ltd are separate and distinct legal entities, and whether Facebook Nigeria acted as an agent of Meta in Nigeria.

Advertisement

On both counts, the court held that ARCON had failed to discharge the burden of proof, finding no evidence of a corporate nexus beyond the two companies’ separate legal existence, and therefore no basis on which Facebook Nigeria could answer for anything connected to Meta’s platforms. This means, money can be made by Facebook in Nigeria market, but accountability and responsibility will shift to the Head Office in the USA which claimed it’s out of Nigeria’s legal jurisdiction.

Those findings and subsequent decision, not the fine imposed, are what should have produced a press statement or shape media narrative as these are landmark decisions.

The evidentiary gap in the ruling

Advertisement

The conclusion is, on its face, startling, because the relationship between Facebook Nigeria and Meta is not exactly a secret that requires forensic excavation.

Meta’s own terms of service, unchanged for years, identify Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram as products of Meta Platforms, Inc. Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited’s very name signals its function as an operating entity for Meta’s Nigerian market, its representatives based in Lagos, its correspondence running through Meta’s own domains.

That such linkages could be found legally unproven raises the question of whether the necessary homework was done by the Hon Court to arrive at finding that runs against easily verifiable commercial reality.

Advertisement

That concern deepens against the longer background of ARCON’s own dealings with Meta. This was not the regulator’s first attempt to pin accountability on a Meta-linked entity in Nigeria.

In October 2022, ARCON sued Meta Platforms directly alongside its Nigerian agent, AT3 Resources Limited, over the exposure of unvetted advertisements shown to the Nigerian audience, in Abuja.

That Abuja case lingered for close to two years, shuffled between several adjournments, without ever being tested on the merits, before ARCON’s counsel discontinued it in July 2024. It was withdrawn. That withdrawal cleared the ground for the fresh dispute that would eventually surface in Lagos as Facebook Nigeria sue ARCON.

Advertisement

Particularly interesting is that this is not the first time Nigerian courts have entertained proceedings against Meta without putting the burden of or insisting that litigants first unravel every layer of the company’s global corporate architecture.

Most recently in the Falana v. Meta Platforms Inc. case, the Lagos High Court permitted proceedings arising from the alleged unauthorised use of the human rights lawyer’s name and image on Facebook, treating Meta as the proper party without placing the burden on the claimant to establish the nexus between Meta Platforms Inc. and Facebook before assuming jurisdiction.

Similarly, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission fined the company $220 million for abusing Nigerian users’ data, treating Meta as answerable in Nigeria without requiring anyone to first prove an elaborate corporate map.

Advertisement

If one Nigerian regulator could establish that accountability, the difficulty ARCON says it encountered doing something similar deserves closer scrutiny.

Several attempt by META INC to use corporate separateness in other countries failed 

Nigeria is not the only jurisdiction where Meta has tried to use corporate separateness as a shield, and other courts have not been so easily persuaded.

Advertisement

In Kenya, Meta argued for years that it could not be sued over the treatment of Facebook content moderators because it did not directly employ them.

Kenya’s employment court rejected that, ruling that Meta was the primary employer because the moderators did Meta’s work and were held to its metrics, and that Sama was “merely an agent”; Kenya’s Court of Appeal upheld that decision despite Meta’s claim to be a foreign company outside the court’s reach.

In Australia, the fact pattern was almost identical to Nigeria’s. A case brought by the Australian Information Commissioner concerned Facebook Inc, serving North American users, and Facebook Ireland, serving everyone else; Facebook Inc argued it could not be conducting business in Australia because only Facebook Ireland was, with no assets or revenues of its own there.

Advertisement

The Full Federal Court rejected that, treating the data-processing arrangement between the two entities as evidence Facebook Inc itself was conducting business in Australia, and separately refused Facebook Inc’s bid to escape service of process.

The European Union offers a third instance, involving the very architecture Meta uses to separate its foreign operations from its American parent. Facebook Inc. routes non-US, non-Canada business through a distinct Irish company, Facebook Ireland Ltd, described in its own filings as the data controller for those users, structured to keep the US parent at arm’s length from foreign regulators.

It did not work indefinitely: Ireland’s Data Protection Commission fined the Irish subsidiary itself a record €1.2 billion and ordered it to halt unlawful transfers to its own parent.

Advertisement

Even inside the United States, Meta has run the same play against its own government. In a Vermont lawsuit over Instagram’s design and its effects on teenagers, Meta argued it could not be sued there because neither it nor the app had specific ties to the state; Vermont countered that Instagram’s large teen user base there was enough.

The US Supreme Court declined to hear Meta’s appeal in May 2026, leaving it exposed in a suit naming both Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC.

National Security & Who answers when it matters?

Advertisement

This is where the fixation on fine has led the conversation astray. The money was never really the point but whether anyone in Nigeria can be held to account for what happens on these platforms which is a critical part of the digital economy.

If a court has found, on the evidence before it, that a platform’s local entity bears no legal relationship to the global parent that owns and profits from it, the country has stumbled into a template for regulatory evasion that extends well past Meta, to every multinational platform and organisation doing business in Nigeria.

Facebook and Instagram are not neutral pipes. They are marketplaces where cars, phones, drugs, and, on occasion, weapons and other contraband get advertised to Nigerian audiences; where scams targeting bank accounts run, and where harmful content reaches Nigerian children.

Advertisement

So, to ask the plain question this judgment leaves hanging… when a fraudulent investment scheme, a counterfeit pharmaceutical, or worse is advertised to Nigerians through Facebook or Instagram, who is answerable in a Nigerian court? If Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited has just been found to bear no proven relationship to the platform it operates, the honest answer is no one in this country. That is a national security and economic-sovereignty question that deserves an urgent answer.

This judgement may start a new window of corporate separateness, become a challenge to accountability and responsibility which multi nationals and global organisation may explore with Nigerians unfortunately being dealt the short end of the stick.

Also read: Napoli Threaten Disciplinary Action Against Lukaku

In the interest of the public, the judiciary owe Nigerians beyond legal technicalities and prima facie evidence, the obligation to do an extensive review on this case to protect the generality of the public. Until then, the fine everyone is talking about is the least of what this judgment may cost the country.

Advertisement

Opinion

Tributes to Dr. Segun Osoba and Abosede Oluwayemisi

Published

on

Dr. Segun Osoba

By Bola BOLAWOLE, 

Dr. Segun Osoba, Marxist scholar and historian, was one of my mentors and role models. Our paths crossed long before I came face-to-face with the enigma at the then University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, where he not only taught me courses in the History department, but was also our staff adviser and comrade.

Advertisement

Also read: Folarin Balogun Linked With Tottenham Move Amid Transfer Talks

Cerebral and unflinchingly principled, Osoba snubbed the usual hussle, if I may call it that, of many academics to attain to the professoral status, preferring to remain “Dr.” even though everyone knew he was not the mate of many a professor!

For me, Osoba’s fame travelled far ahead of him. Appointed by the Murtala Muhammed regime into the Constitution Drafting Committee in October 1975, Osoba, together with his ideological soulmate, Dr. Bala Usman of the History department of the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, broke ranks with the other members of the CDC to author a people-oriented draft Constitution that made the Nigerian people’s interests, aspirations and well-being its focal point. It was termed the Minority Report.

Expectedly, the conservative Olusegun Obasanjo regime that succeeded Murtala Muhammed rejected the Osoba/Bala Usman report while accepting the report of the majority members of the CDC on September 14, 1976. The CDC was chaired by Chief FRA Williams.

Advertisement

The majority/minority report divide apart, the CDC was not without its controversies: The sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had declined to serve on the committee, thereby reducing its members from 50 to 49. There was also the debate as to what would have been the choice of a much more radical Murtala Muhammed had he not been assassinated on February 13, 1976.

Specifically because of Osoba and Bala Usman, I chose to study History in the university! And I was fortunate to drink from the fountain of knowledge at the feet of Dr. Osoba on and off the classroom. As comrades, our relationship did not end at Ife; usually, comradeship is a life-long endeavour.

In late December 2023, after a spell of ‘long-time-no-see’, four of us old students/comrades of Comrade Osoba decided to visit him at his Ijebu-Ode residence – Femi Falana, SAN; Ambassador Ayo Olukanni; Kayode Komolafe (K.K.) and my humble self.

Advertisement

Comrade was still his very sharp and humorous self. Despite his health challenges, he still “recognised” each and everyone of us by our voice. We discussed for hours and it was amazing that ill-health spared his intellect. He was his familiar self – analytical, even if caustic, going down memory lane and recalling facts and figures as if he was reading them from a book spread out before him.

We promised to return. Unfortunately, we procrastinated, despite Olukanni’s repeated prodding. But as individuals, we attended his 90th birthday celebration held at Ijebu-Ode on 9th January, 2025. His book, “Critical and Contentious Issues in the Modern and Contemporary History of Nigeria: Collected Writings of Samuel Olusegun Osoba”, which was unveiled at the occasion, adorns my Library. See also my “Tributes to Comrade (Dr.) Segun Osoba at 90”, published in this column in the Wednesday, 15 January, 2025 edition of the New Telegraph newspaper.

Dr. Osoba passed away peacefully at home in Ijebu-Ode on 14 May, 2026. A flurry of activities by comrades from all the nooks and crannies of this country as well as abroad celebrated his life, extolled his virtues, pledged to continue the struggle from where he stopped, and bid him farewell from this earthly plane. In this were the words of Che Guevara fulfilled: “Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear and another hand may be extended to wield our weapons (Message to the Tricontinental, 1967).”

Advertisement

I was unable to participate fully in some of the activities because of the tragedy that fell at my doorsteps at about the same time.

First, my elder sister’s husband, Gabriel Alani Olusola Omiyale, died on June 11, 2026 at the age of 89 years. He was a mentor. Then came the bombshell: His daughter – and my sister’s second child, Abosede Oluwayemisi – died the same month on June 29th at the age of 54!

That was massive! To say we were devastated is an understatement. If the pains that attended Bose’s death remain indescribable, the ways and manners of her husband and his family immediately before and after her death remain a puzzle. They rubbed insults on our injury.

Advertisement

They desecrated our Yoruba customs and traditions. Bose had heroically battled the scourge of breast cancer; after undergoing an operation, we were all optimistic she was on the path to full recovery until tests showed she needed more medical attention.

Naturally, she was devastated but, gradually, she built up the confidence and strength required to see her through. No stone was left unturned by her extended family who did not leave the load for the husband and his family to carry. All hands were on deck.

The extended family had always been there for Bose. Her siblings had been wonderful; never allowing her husband’s unstable job situation to show or affect Bose’s treatment and other needs, including her children’s education and welfare. I also played my part. I am grateful to everyone who responded to our clarion call in many ways.

Advertisement

We were hopeful we would all pull through it and that Bose’s case would be another testimony that cancer can be beaten. All she needed – as much as medicare – were words of encouragement and support. That, however, became the weakest link!

Act one: Against the best advice of her mother, my niece was made to consume a concoction that turned the tide. According to her husband, the concoction was procured by his own brother in Akure, Ondo state, taken to a church for prayers after which it was dispatched through a motorpark! Bose drank this concoction and started vomiting. In his own testimonies, Bose’s husband took her to a hospital where she was given drips, which gave her some strength, but because the doctor was late in coming, he took her back home despite the fact that the test they ran indicated that she had a blood infection! That night at home, she started vomiting again and, according to the husband’s testimony, he took her again to the hospital by 1.30am. She was left unattended until late afternoon when she fell into a coma! Bose’s blood infection was never treated until she passed away!

Act Two: Our standard practice had been to always double-check whatever a doctor said or prescribed, but on this fatal day, Bose’s husband kept all of us in the dark. We were not told of the blood infection. We were not alerted when she started vomiting again in the night. We were not informed when he took her again to the hospital. According to him, Bose walked with her own legs into the hospital, climbing the row of stairs all by herself.

Advertisement

Act Three: At the hospital, the husband took Bose’s phone and locked it in the car parked downstairs. So she had no access to her phone – to call out or receive in-coming calls. She was held incommunicado. And there was no one else there with the husband and wife. He called noone; he also snubbed repeated incoming calls into his own phone, including from my elder sister, who is Bose’s mother.

Act four: Later that afternoon, the husband called me to say Bose was not responding to treatment and that I should start interceding for her. I was aghast! I had been waiting all day for them to link up with me for a scheduled appointment. Later, a female voice using the husband’s phone called me to quickly come to the hospital. I was on my way there when Bose’s second child, a girl writing exams at the Obafemi Awolowo University, called me, sobbing! “Daddy, what is happening to my Mom? My Daddy called me and said my Mummy is in coma” Coma! “Yes, sir”, the girl replied, “and my Daddy said my Mummy is dead!” I almost lost control of the wheel because I was driving.

Act Five: On getting to the hospital, they had already started embalming Bose! I screamed at the husband, but the hospital staff restrained me. Why the haste? Without any of her family members present! A thousand thoughts ran riot in my head. At 6.28 pm, Bose’s mortal remains were deposited in the morgue and we left.

Advertisement

Act Six: While we were agonizing about how to break the sad news to Bose’s mother, her husband and his family had posted Bose’s death on every conceivable social media platform, breaking the news to her young children, the oldest of whom is just a little over 20 years while the youngest is 14!

Act seven: We the siblings of Bose’s mother wanted a decent burial for her. We wanted her dreams and visions for her children respected. Bose’s husband and his family spurned all of that! They weaponized Bose’s young children against us. They threw their so-called customs and traditions in our face at every turn – as if the Yoruba have no customs and traditions. They employed deceit and subterfuge and hurriedly committed Bose to mother earth without any of her family members present! We warned! They ignored and played games!

Google says Edema is a name answered by both the Urhobo and Itsekiri people of Delta state. Does their culture permit the trumping of Yoruba customs and traditions? Should a husband boast to his children – while their mother was still battling cancer – that, if she dies, he will remarry? So, expect his wedding invitation!

Advertisement

Also read: Folarin Balogun Linked With Tottenham Move Amid Transfer Talks

Had Bose died of cancer, our pains would have been less insufferable; but she did not! Were they tired of the stress and wanted closure so they could move on with their own life? Hastened to her death! Hurried to the grave! This is to put the records straight. Our immediate attention, however, is the good health of Bose’s mother – and Daddy Omiyale’s burial slated for 29th and 30th of October this year.

Let Dr. Segun Osoba rest in power! And eternal rest grant Abosede Oluwayemisi Edema (nee Omiyale), O Lord!

 

Advertisement

(Published in the TREASURES column on the back page of the Wednesday, 5 August, 2026 edition of the New Telegraph newspaper).

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending