…Affirms ARCON’s Oversight Authority Over OOH
In a landmark judgment that is sure to send shockwaves through Nigeria’s advertising industry, the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja has delivered a sweeping validation of the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) Act 23 of 2022. It ruled that the regulatory body possesses constitutional authority to approve and regulate outdoor advertisements across all platforms in the Federation.
The judgment, delivered on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, by Honourable Justice Isa H. Dashen in the case of Godec Power Nigeria Ltd v. Attorney General of the Federation & ARCON (Suit No: FHC/LKJ/CS/20/2024), directly contradicts a ruling made just five days earlier by the Federal High Court in Lagos, setting the stage for what legal experts describe as a defining regulatory jurisdiction over Nigeria’s burgeoning advertising sector.
Background
What appears to set the stage for this began on Friday, November 7, 2025, when Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, delivered a judgment in Massilia Motors Limited v. ARCON that declared sections of the ARCON Act 2022 unconstitutional. Justice Aluko ruled that outdoor advertising regulation belonged exclusively to Local Government Councils under the Constitution, effectively stripping ARCON of enforcement powers over billboards, signage, and hoardings.
That decision was celebrated by the Advertisers Association of Nigeria (ADVAN) as “a breath of fresh air” for the industry, with lead counsel Dr. Kolawole Mayomi describing it as a significant victory against what he termed “arbitrary provisions” of the ARCON Act.
However, the jubilation proved short-lived. Just three days later, Justice Dashen’s comprehensive 52-page judgment in the Godec case not only upheld ARCON’s powers but provided an elaborate constitutional basis for the regulatory body’s authority across all advertising mediums.
The Lokoja Judgment: Key Findings
In his judgment, Justice Dashen held that the National Assembly acted within its constitutional mandate when it enacted the ARCON Act 2022, drawing authority from Items 49, 62, and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, which cover professional occupations, trade and commerce, and matters incidental thereto.
“Advertising, being the communicative vehicle of trade and commerce, is manifestly incidental to those heads of legislative power,” Justice Dashen stated in his judgment. “It is also an organized professional occupation akin to the disciplines expressly regulated under Item 49.”
The court dismissed arguments that ARCON’s regulatory reach was limited to advertising professionals, affirming that Section 2(2) of the ARCON Act lawfully extends to “any person who engages in, regulates, sponsors, or takes benefit of advertising, advertisement or marketing communication services.”
Justice Dashen drew parallels with other professional regulatory frameworks, noting that the Engineers (Registration etc.) Act and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act similarly apply sanctions to “any person,” not just registered professionals. “Without the power to legislate over matters incidental or supplementary to professional occupations, the National Assembly would be handicapped and laws enacted for the regulation of professional occupations would be ineffective,” the judge observed.
Outdoor Advertising: A Matter of Content, Not Structure
Central to the Lokoja judgment was the court’s distinction between regulating advertising content versus advertising medium. Justice Dashen held that while Local Government Councils retain authority over physical structures—the placement and licensing of billboards and signage—ARCON’s jurisdiction covers the content and ethical standards of advertisements displayed on those structures.
“Paragraph 1(k)(i) of the Fourth Schedule concerns the physical regulation of signboards, billboards, and hoardings within a local jurisdiction—that is, the medium or physical infrastructure of display,” the judgment stated. “The ARCON Act, by contrast, concerns the content, quality, and ethical standard of advertising messages disseminated to the Nigerian public. The two operate in distinct spheres and are complementary, not conflicting.”
This nuanced interpretation effectively allows both Local Government Councils and ARCON to exercise concurrent jurisdiction in their respective domains—a position that stakeholders believe brings much-needed clarity to what has been a contentious regulatory grey area.
Constitutional Rights and Reasonable Limitations
The plaintiff, Godec Power Nigeria Ltd, had argued that ARCON’s requirement for prior approval of advertisements violated Section 39 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression. The court firmly rejected this submission.
Justice Dashen invoked Section 45(1) of the Constitution, which permits restrictions “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order, morality, or public safety.”
“The regulatory pre-approval requirement does not suppress expression; it merely ensures that public communications conform to lawful standards of decency, truthfulness and fairness,” the judge ruled. “Such prophylactic regulation is a legitimate incident of state oversight over commerce and communication.”
He referenced the Court of Appeal’s decision in President of the FRN v. Isa (2015), which affirmed that statutory regulation serving legitimate public objectives does not infringe constitutional rights.
What the Judgment Said: Key Excerpts
Justice Dashen’s judgment contains several passages that legal scholars predict will be extensively cited in future advertising law cases:
On legislative competence: “The National Assembly therefore acted intra vires when it enacted the ARCON Act to regulate the standards, ethics, and professional practice of advertising throughout the Federation. To hold otherwise would be to excise from the National Assembly the power to regulate the very medium by which trade and commerce operate—an absurd result never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.”
On scope of application: “Section 2(2) of the ARCON Act expressly stipulates that its provisions shall apply to ‘any person who engages in, regulates, sponsors, or takes benefit of advertising, advertisement or marketing communication services.’ The legislative intent is thus clear and unequivocal: the statute binds all actors within the advertising ecosystem, not merely registered professionals.”
On the complementary nature of federal and local jurisdiction: “Construed as a whole, there is no collision between the ARCON Act and paragraph 1(k)(i); both can co-exist without constitutional disharmony. The doctrine of inconsistency is therefore inapplicable.”
Costs and Consequences
The court awarded costs of N500,000 against Godec Power Nigeria Ltd in favor of each defendant, the Attorney General of the Federation and ARCON. The company had sought declarations that ARCON lacked jurisdiction over its business signage and had demanded N100 million in damages for alleged harassment.
Instead, the company now faces not only the financial burden of the judgment but also potential ARCON enforcement action for any advertising that has not been pre-approved. The judgment explicitly validates the Notice of Violation issued to Godec and similar enforcement measures.
The back-to-back contradictory rulings have created what industry watchers describe as an unprecedented situation in Nigeria’s advertising regulatory landscape. What makes the matter particularly intriguing is that both earlier judgments referenced in this report were delivered by Justice Akintayo Aluko’s court in Lagos, first affirming ARCON’s broad powers in April 2025 in the Digi Bay Limited (Betway) case, and then seemingly reversing course in November in the Massilia Motors case.
Legal analysts note the irony which is Justice Aluko, who had comprehensively validated ARCON’s authority over all forms of advertising including social media in April 2025, declared aspects of that same authority unconstitutional just seven months later.
The advertising industry, faces practical uncertainty. Should advertisers comply with ARCON’s pre-approval requirements? Can Local Government Councils independently regulate advertising content? What happens when ARCON and LGA requirements conflict? Again, how many local governments will advertisers deal with singularly if they have a national campaign?
The legal battle over ARCON’s powers must be understood against the backdrop of Nigeria’s rapidly evolving advertising landscape. The transition from the old Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) to ARCON under the 2022 Act was designed to expand regulatory reach beyond registered practitioners to encompass the entire advertising ecosystem, including brands, digital platforms, influencers, and content creators.
This expansion reflected the realities of modern advertising, where traditional agency-client relationships have been disrupted by social media, influencer marketing, and direct-to-consumer digital campaigns. The question was always whether this legislative expansion was constitutionally permissible.
The Lokoja judgment suggests it is, provided the distinction between content regulation (federal) and structural/locational regulation (local) is maintained.
Regional Implications: Will Other Courts Follow?
The Lokoja judgment’s comprehensive treatment of the constitutional issues and its detailed comparative analysis of similar regulatory frameworks may influence other courts facing related challenges. Several jurisdictions are currently considering cases involving ARCON’s authority, and Justice Dashen’s reasoning provides a template for courts inclined to uphold the ARCON Act. The question is now, what is next?
This is a developing story and Brand Communicator will keep you abreast of the latest.
