Enforcement Gaps in Nigeria’s Consumer Protection Framework: Lessons from the Nestlé Recall

CONTRIBUTOR: ETIENO MARTIN UKANGA

INTRODUCTION

In Nigeria, significant efforts have been directed toward protecting consumer rights, curbing the distribution of defective and harmful products, and preventing monopolistic practices by manufacturers aimed at creating artificial scarcity. Despite the Government’s sustained commitment to safeguarding consumers from unfair practices and losses, through the enactment of consumer protection laws and the establishment of regulatory institutions, the effective enforcement of these laws remains a major challenge.

Consumer protection and competition in Nigeria are primarily regulated by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) pursuant to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2019.^[1] This Act repealed the Consumer Protection Council Act 1992, the first legislation specifically designed to address the practical enforcement of consumer rights in Nigeria.

Although the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) provides for the right of consumers to return defective goods and obtain a refund, Nigeria lacks a clearly defined and consistently implemented product recall and refund regime. Unlike jurisdictions where manufacturers publicly recall defective products and guarantee refunds, such as the widely reported recalls by Nestlé, Nigeria has recorded few instances of product recalls accompanied by assured compensation or refunds to affected consumers. In practice, manufacturers often withdraw defective products from circulation without addressing the financial loss already suffered by consumers, who ultimately bear the burden.

This article examines how the Nestlé recall highlights systemic enforcement gaps within Nigeria’s consumer protection framework. It analyses the underlying causes of these gaps, draws comparative lessons from other jurisdictions, and underscores the urgent need for effective and structured enforcement reforms.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

Consumer protection refers to the protection of consumers from defective, counterfeit, substandard, and adulterated goods and services, as well as from unfair and harmful market practices. It entails safeguarding the rights and interests of end-users or buyers of goods and services, and the broader public interest, against exploitative business conduct.^[2] As the final link in the production chain, consumers possess enforceable legal rights against producers and suppliers of goods and services offered in the market.

Enforcement of consumer protection refers to the measures taken to ensure that consumer protection laws are not merely enacted but effectively implemented in practice. It requires regulatory institutions not only to exist in form but to function efficiently, ensuring compliance and deterrence. In Nigeria, agencies such as the FCCPC play a central role in ensuring that laws and regulations designed to protect consumers are actively enforced.

Consumer protection enforcement operates in two principal forms. Preventive enforcement involves proactive measures such as inspections, product testing, and licensing to ensure compliance before harm occurs. Corrective enforcement, on the other hand, involves remedial actions such as product recalls, sanctions, and compensation after a breach has occurred.

Consumer redress refers to the remedies available to consumers when their rights are violated. These remedies include restitution, damages, replacement of goods, and the enforcement of consumer contracts. It ensures that consumers have accessible avenues to seek compensation for losses arising from unfair business practices. The principle of effective consumer remedies is illustrated in Cohen v BNY Mellon,^[3] which underscores the need for accessible and efficient mechanisms for redress. While consumer protection seeks to prevent harm, consumer redress provides remedies after harm has occurred. Together, they form an integrated framework that upholds consumer rights and promotes fairness in commercial transactions.

LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria there are different institutions and laws that governs consumer protection in different sector like NAFDAC Act (Regulation of food, drugs, and consumables) and Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) Act ensuring Product standards and conformity with some having Overlapping mandates, however, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“FCCPA”) is the primary legislation that governs and protects the rights of consumers in Nigeria. Section 39 of the FCCPA- Establishes the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal’s primary purpose is to adjudicate on conduct prohibited under the Act. It is also empowered to hear appeals from, or review any decision of the Commission taken in the course of the implementation of any of the provisions of the FCCPA, and to hear appeals from or review any decision from the exercise of the powers of any sector-specific regulatory authority in a regulated industry with respect to competition and consumer protection matters^[4]. This clearly shows that in consumer protection Nigeria is not under-regulated but rather it is under-enforced.

THE NESTLÉ RECALL: A COMPARATIVE LESSON AS TO ENFORCEMEMT GAPS IN NIGERIA’S CONSUMER PROTECTION.

When Nestlé voluntarily recalled certain baby formula products in the UK due to a possible toxin contamination, the company on their website on the 5^th January, 2026 set up specific ways for customers to return and be refunded, Customers with affected products were told not to use them and to stop feeding them to babies.

Nestlé provided a process to claim a refund by putting it out on their website that affected customers should upload a photo of the product and batch code via Nestlé’s contact page, or call the Nestlé careline number to arrange a refund or return^[5] ‘‘If you have purchased one of these batches, please share a photo of the product and the batch code via  https://www.nestle.co.uk/en-gb/getintouch or by calling our careline on 0800 0 81 81 80 (UK) 1800 931 832 (Ireland) and we will refund you’’. Retailers such as Tesco also offered full refunds at store level, even without a receipt, for the recalled products^[6]. This recalls and refund procedures are done voluntarily by the company in cooperation with UK food safety authorities (like the Food Standards Agency) because the company is required under UK consumer law to ensure faulty goods are refunded, repaired or replaced and this was also possible because the agencies ensure that companies provide means that will aid proper market surveillance from adequate provision of batch codes, description and uniformity which aided recall and refund.

Unlike the Hollandia Yoghurt news saga where the company later made it clear and debunked the widespread rumours that current products are fake. Instead, the firm said that the packaging for Hollandia yoghurt (and some other Hollandia/Chivita products) has been updated as part of a brand refresh, including new materials, design elements like QR codes, and sustainability messaging^[7]. Such rumours would not have seen the light of the day if there was proper, uniform and consistent branding like Nestle which aided a smooth recall without creating confusions in the mind of consumers. Also the United Kingdom Government has ensured the enforcement of return and refund policy to be very pronounced, to ensure that anyone who goes against such will face the penalty, by ensuring that even the government’s website addresses the issue of return and refund where it is said ‘‘It’s illegal to restrict or take away customers’ rights or to mislead them about their rights, for example by displaying a sign that says you do not accept returns or offer refunds’’.^[8] And further goes ahead to provide Items bought online, by mail or phone and instances where only return will be accepted without refunds.

Unfortunately, this is the reverse in Nigeria, as printout receipts in supermarkets bears ‘‘no refunds’’. Despite the provisions of the FCCPA 2018, recall in Nigeria Is Treated as a “Public Safety Action,” Not a “Consumer Remedy”. In practice, Nigerian recalls are mainly focused on removing dangerous products from circulation, Protecting public health, stopping further consumption and once that is done regulators often consider their job completed, this enforcement mindset is a major reason refunds fail, as refunds are treated as secondary, not central whereas in other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom recall tallies with refund and compensation

In Nigeria there is a Weak Enforcement of Section 122 FCCPA^[9] (Refund Right). although Section 122 FCCPA gives consumers the right to refund, in practice FCCPC rarely issues clear refund enforcement directives or ensure production companies do so, as done in the Nestle’s case study, refund orders are not consistently monitored, Companies are not compelled to show proof of refunds paid, hence, the right exists on paper, but enforcement is weak.

Unlike the UK, Nigerian law does not prescribe how refunds must be done, such as; timeframe for refund, method of payment^[10], Central refund portal, Retailer obligation to refund even without receipt, So companies often say “Return the product” without saying “You will be refunded.” This loophole allows companies to avoid financial responsibility. FCCPC does not aggressively pursue refunds Consumers are left confused about where to complain with other institutional organs acting separately whereas, in jurisdictions like UK, Food Standards Agency in collaboration Competition and Market Authority and the retailers act together, hence, there is an assurance of consumers returning the recalled product to any store or from the purchased store in specific instances and the retailer refunds immediately, while the manufacturer reimburses the retailer later. In Nigeria the motto by retailers often remains “We are not the manufacturer.” It is accurate to say that there is No effective statutory duty compelling retailers to refund recalled goods and no reimbursement framework between manufacturers and sellers So refunds collapse at the retail level.

CAUSES OF ENFORCEMENT GAPS:

According to academic research and law reviews, some of the challenges in the enforcement of consumer protection rights are:

• Institutional capacity issues: Some institutional agencies are faced with limited funding and technical tools for inspections.
• Low consumer awareness: few citizens understand their rights or available remedies^[11].
• Judicial delays and procedural hurdles : Although the Supreme Court ruled
  in UBA Plc v Abimbola^[12] that consumers can claim damages for breach of contractual duty by service providers, to finally get justice is burdensome for consumers as redresses with respect to consumer protection right are limited to judicial process with no direct order, but reliance on the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal whose decisions must be registered with the Federal High Court for the purpose of enforcement. Furthermore, the appeals of the CCPT are to be commenced at the Court of Appeal of Nigeria within 30days of the CCPT passing its order/judgment^[13] and such appealable judicial process takes time due to Court delays, technicalities, and prolonged litigation discourages effective enforcement.
• Informal and Unregulated Markets: In economies with large informal sectors Traders operate outside regulatory oversight, making Enforcement become practically difficult and this is common in developing economies like Nigeria.
• Ineffective Regulatory Framework: This includes Outdated laws and Ambiguous provisions (e.g., unclear standards like “reasonable time” to return a defective product and obtain a refund) Overlapping responsibilities among agencies without coordination amongst them, such gaps make enforcement slow and uncertain.
• Corruption and Undue Influence: Enforcement can be weakened by Bribery, Political interference and Regulatory capture by powerful corporations which undermines accountability.
• Weak Sanctions and Penalties: Where penalties are too small, rarely imposed, not deterrent, businesses may prefer to violate the law rather than comply.
• High Cost of Enforcement and Litigation: Many consumers cannot afford Legal representation, Filing fees, Time away from work. This limits private enforcement of rights.
• Limited Data, Complaint Tracking and Cross-border Transactions Without reliable data: Patterns of abuse go unnoticed, Policy responses become reactive rather than preventive, while international transactions create challenges such as Difficulty tracing sellers and Weak international cooperation.

Recommendations for Reform

• A short and definite time frame must be set to adjudicate on consumer protection issues, from institution of action to final judgement, including appeals. And just as the final court for appeals from NICN is the Court of Appeal, same should be done from matters from CCPT to avoid years of adjudication without which discourages consumers.
• Just like the Uk, Direct orders should be given to enforce return and refund, without a single route for such redress not being through judicial process as the courts are often inundated with cases, leading to delays in hearing consumer disputes^[14].
• One of the causes of enforcement gaps in Nigeria is difficulty in tracking sellers and market coordination, the Nigerian Consumer protection agency should learn and understand the system of other consumer protection agencies in other jurisdiction, by cooperating with other agencies to create an adequate distribution flow and labelling, to be able to track, recall and ensure a seamless strategic refund policy as done by Nestle.
• There should be an effective statutory duty compelling retailers to refund recalled goods and a reimbursement framework between manufacturers and sellers .
• It is recommended that market surveillance mechanisms be significantly strengthened to ensure continuous monitoring of products circulating within the market. Such enhanced surveillance will enable the prompt detection of defective or substandard products and facilitate timely recalls where necessary. In addition, effective refund mechanisms should be institutionalized to guarantee that affected consumers are adequately compensated. This can be achieved through well-structured distribution strategies already in place, which should be leveraged to trace products, coordinate recalls, and ensure efficient refund payments to consumers.

CONCLUSION

From the above, it is crystal clear that the Government of Nigeria has made frantic efforts by enacting laws that gears towards the protection of consumers rights in Nigeria. The only missing gap is that most of these laws have not really enforced protection to Nigerian consumers. Hence, it is safe to argue that the protection provided for Nigerian consumers is at best on paper. This is so evident in the comparative analysis of consumer protection laws in Nigeria with that of United Kingdom precisely the Nestlé recall which has revealed deep enforcement weaknesses, this is to say that Consumer protection must move from being reactive to preventive. It is therefore submitted that Nigerian government should draw a lesson from other jurisdiction counterpart in framing its consumer protection laws to provide the much needed protection to Nigerian consumers. Without credible enforcement, consumer protection laws remain symbolic, leaving Nigerian consumers exposed in an increasingly globalized food market.

REFERENCE

1. Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2019, Cap. C23 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria [LFN] 2004 (FCCPA 2019). ↑
2. E. Ogbuka. , ‘Legal Framework Governing Consumer Protection and Competition in Nigeria’ [September 2022]<https://www.tekedia.com>accessed:26^th January, 2026 ↑
3. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130926 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ↑
4. Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2019, Cap. C23 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria [LFN] 2004 (FCCPA 2019) S.39 ↑
5. Consumer Recall Notice: SMA Infant Formula and Follow-On Formula https://www.nestle.co.uk/en-gb/media/sma-infant-formula-follow-on-formula-recall?utm Accessed 27^th January,2026↑
6. Product recall- Various SMA Infant and Follow-On Formula https://digitalcontent.api.tesco.com/v2/media/ghs-roi/b2fc2e6a-874a-49a8-a3d0-928ee596f4de/2545-ROI-Various%2BFollow%2BOn%2BFormulaI.pdf?ut accessed 27th January, 2026 ↑
7. The risk of change in a counterfeit-sensitive market https://marketingedge.com.ng/the-risk-of-change-in-a-counterfeit-sensitive-market/ accessed 27^th January,2026↑
8. Accepting Returns and Giving Refunds https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds/ accessed 27^th January, 2026. ↑
9. Ibid S.122. ↑
10. Consumer Rights ACT 201 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/body/2025-04-06?utm.com accessed 27^th January, 2026. ↑
11. Emmanuel M. Wosu; CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IN NIGERIA AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, University of Port Harcourt Journal of Private Law, Vol. 1, 2017 -accessed 27^th January, 2026. ↑
12. (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 726) 102 ↑
13. E. Ogbuka, ‘The Legal Framework Governing Consumer Protection in Nigeria’, Sept 2, 2022<https://www.tekedia.com/the-legal-framework-governing-consumer-protection-and-competition-in-nigeria/>accessed: 27^th January 2026. ↑
14. ANGYA ‘‘The Courts and Consumer Redress in Nigeria’’ International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ) 6(3) September 2024- https://nigerianjournalsonline.org/index.php/IRLJ/article/view/459/457- Accessed 27^th January, 2026 ↑