The Exclusive Powers Of Local Government To Regulate Outdoor Advertising In Nigeria: A Review Of The Federal High Court's Decision In Massilia Motors Limited -v- Advertising Regulatory Council Of Nigeria (Unreported Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1044/2025, Judgment Delivered On 7 November 2025)

Introduction

Since the Federal High Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment in Digi Bay Limited & 2 Others -v- Attorney General of the Federation & Anor on 29 April 2025, by upholding the powers of the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria to regulate advertising in Nigeria, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) increased its vigour in enforcing the provisions of Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act ("the ARCON Act") against various companies in Nigeria.

Interestingly, the Federal High Court of Nigeria, in its recent decision of Massilia Motors Limited -v- Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (unreported Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1044/2025), which was delivered on 7 November 2025, struck down the powers of ARCON to control and regulate outdoor advertising in Nigeria.

Summary of Facts of Massilia Motors Limited -v- Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria

The Plaintiff installed its outdoor advertisement and hoarding materials comprising the flags of its motor car brand (Mitsubishi) with a tagline (Drive Your Ambition) without securing the approval of the Advertising Standards Panel of ARCON, contrary to the provisions of section 54 of the ARCON Act. Upon discovering the Plaintiff's lamp-post advertisement, the Defendant issued a Notice of Violation requesting the Plaintiff to pay a fine of N1,000,000.00 (One million naira) and a Criminal Summons at the Advertising Offences Tribunal against the Plaintiff.

Being dissatisfied with the issuance of the Notice of Violation and the Criminal Summons, the Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the Defendant by filing an originating summons dated 27 May 2025, requesting an order of the Federal High Court declaring that ARCON lacks the powers to regulate outdoor advertising in Nigeria based on the provisions of section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and paragraph 1(k)(i) of the 4^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

The summary of the Plaintiff's argument was that since paragraph 1(k)(i) of the 4^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that the Local Governments in Nigeria shall be responsible for regulating outdoor advertising in Nigeria, it was unlawful for ARCON to seek to regulate outdoor advertising in Nigeria by relying on any provision of the ARCON Act. The Plaintiff cited various judicial authorities supporting the argument that any other law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be declared void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Instructively, paragraph 1(k)(i) of the 4^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:

"The main functions of a local government council are as follows- control and regulation of out-door advertising and hoarding."

On its part, ARCON argued that the powers conferred on the Local Government Councils under paragraph 1(k)(i) of the 4^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, only relate to regulation and control of medium of out-door advertisement such as billboards, signages, out-door banners and digital displays. The Defendant concluded its argument by stating that the powers conferred on Local Government Councils under the 1999 Constitution do not empower Local Government Councils to regulate the content of advertisements displayed on the out-door medium of advertisement.

After reviewing the parties' arguments, the Court agreed with the Plaintiff's position that ARCON lacks the power to control and regulate out-door advertising in Nigeria since this power had already been given to the Local Government Councils under paragraph 1(k)(i) of the 4^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. Accordingly, the Court held that the provisions of sections 2 (2) (a), 8(a), 9 (f), (p), (q), (t) and (u) of the ARCON Act, 2022 do not apply to the control and regulation of out-door advertisement and hoarding materials in Nigeria. The Court held as follows on page 21 of the judgment:

"Juxtaposing the provision of paragraph 1 (k) (i) of the 4^th Schedule to the CFRN with the above provisions of the ARCON Act, 2022, it is observed that the constitution does not give power over control and regulation of outdoor advertising and hoarding materials to the Defendant. Going by the provision of paragraph 1 (k) (i) of 4^th Schedule to the constitution, the local government council is the only constitutional and lawful arm of government vested with the powers to exercise control and regulate any out-door advertising in Nigeria which include the Plaintiff's out-of-home advertisement. I agree with the Plaintiff that the Defendant cannot exercise any control over the Plaintiff's out-door signage/hoarding/advertisement."

The Court went ahead to nullify the Notice of Violation, which ARCON issued based on its earlier holding that ARCON lacks the power to regulate out-door advertising in Nigeria. The Court held as follows at page 26 of the judgment:

"I hold the considered view that to the extent that the Defendant seeks to regulate the out-door advertising and hoarding materials installed by the Plaintiff as done in Defendant's notice of violation in exhibit MML2 while relying on the provision of section 54 of the ARCON Act; such venture is unconstitutional."

Although the Plaintiff's Counsel, Dr Kolawole Mayomi, also raised a brilliant argument challenging the independence and impartiality of the Advertising Offences Tribunal based on the provision of section 38 (c) of the ARCON Act, 2022 which provides that the Minister shall appoint the Chairman and other members of the Tribunal on the recommendation of the Council (ARCON), the Court did not make any pronouncement on this argument because it was canvassed as an alternative argument to the main prayers in the originating summons.

Key Takeaways from the Federal High Court's Decision in Massilia Motors Limited -v- Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria

From the Federal High Court's decision, we can deduce the following:

1. Only Local Government Councils have the lawful authority to control and regulate outdoor advertising in Nigeria.
2. The Courts will not hesitate to strike down any provision of a legislation, which is inconsistent with a provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
3. The last may not have been heard on the independence and impartiality of the Advertising Offences Tribunal based on the provisions of section 38 (c) of the ARCON Act, 2022 and section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which makes it a requirement for a tribunal established by law to be constituted in a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.
4. Although the Federal High Court rejected ARCON's core argument that its powers relate to the content of outdoor advertisements, and that Local Governments' powers relate only to the medium of advertisement, the possibility of an appeal means this distinction between content and medium may not be finally settled.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.