Detty December: Balancing Art, Economics, And The Law In Nigeria's Concert Crisis

Detty December has come and gone, and Nigeria's entertainment calendar was once again filled with high-profile concerts by Afro beats artists, and large-scale live events. Alongside the excitement, there was widespread public outrage over ticket prices, with VIP tickets for headliners like Asake, Davido, and Rema soaring between ₦250,000 and ₦300,000 when the national minimum wage in Nigeria is of ₦70,000. Many Nigerians complained bitterly that concerts are increasingly priced beyond the reach of the average fan. This has reignited a critical question, should the Nigerian government or its regulatory bodies intervene to regulate concert ticket prices in the interest of fairness and accessibility? The answer lies in a delicate tug-of-war between the principles of a free market and the statutory duty of the state to protect its citizens from exploitation.

The Free Market Argument: Why Price Regulation Is Generally Unpopular

Nigeria operates a market-driven economy, and concert promotion is, at its core, a private commercial venture. Promoters incur significant costs including artist fees, venue hire, security, logistics, insurance, production, marketing, and regulatory approvals. These costs are typically passed on to consumers through ticket pricing.

The Nigerian Constitution¹ supports this economic framework. Section 16 encourages the State to harness resources to promote prosperity, but it does not mandate price control in private entertainment markets. Furthermore, Section 44 protects the right to property, which extends to the freedom of private entities to determine how their goods and services are priced, provided such pricing is lawful.

From this perspective, blanket government-imposed price caps on concerts may be viewed as an overreach, capable of discouraging investment, lowering production quality, and pushing international-standard events out of Nigeria entirely. Regulating prices might inadvertently kill the industry. If promoters cannot recoup costs, they will stop hosting shows, which might lead to artists simply choosing to perform only in London or New York where they are sure they can recoup money spent plus interests.

When Does the State Have a Justifiable Interest to Intervene?

Despite the free market argument, Nigerian law recognises circumstances where government intervention is justified particularly where consumer welfare, market abuse, or public interest is at stake. The most potent weapon in the government's arsenal is the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018. While the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) often maintains it is not a "Price Control Board²," the law provides specific windows for intervention.

1. Price Gouging and Exploitative Conduct: Under Section 17³ of the FCCPA, the FCCPC is mandated to prevent "unscrupulous" business practices. Section 127 further prohibits "unfair, unreasonable, or unjust" contract terms. If it can be proven that promoters are leveraging a "dominant position" or a "monopoly" over the peak holiday season to artificially inflate prices beyond reasonable overheads, the FCCPC has the authority to intervene. However, proving dominance in the entertainment sector is complex. High prices alone do not automatically amount to abuse; there must be evidence of restricted competition, collusion, or artificial scarcity.
2. Consumer Protection and Transparency: Under the FCCPA, consumers are entitled to fair dealing, clear information, and protection against misleading practices. Regulatory intervention may therefore be justified not to fix prices, but to ensure; Transparent breakdowns of ticket categories and benefits, clear refund and cancellation policies, and disclosure of fees added by ticketing platforms. This form of regulation protects consumers without undermining the commercial freedom of promoters.

Can Price Regulation Be Justified Under Existing Laws?

Nigeria previously operated strict price control regimes under the Price Control Act of 1977. While many view it as a relic of the military era, it remains valid law. Currently, the First Schedule of the Act focuses on items like flour, salt, and petrol. Entertainment services are not included in this list. However, Section 4(2)⁴ of the Act allows the Board to add any goods or services to that list and extending price control logic to concerts would require significant legislative reform.

To legally regulate concert prices, the following would be necessary:

1. Amendments to the FCCPA to expressly recognise live entertainment as a sector susceptible to consumer exploitation during peak periods.
2. Sector-specific regulations issued by the FCCPC or a dedicated creative industry regulator, focusing on pricing standards rather than fixed price ceilings.
3. Anti-collusion enforcement, particularly where promoters, venues, and ticketing platforms coordinate pricing structures.

Without these changes, any attempt by government to impose arbitrary price caps may face constitutional and commercial challenges.

A More Balanced Approach

To ensure "fair prices" without stifling growth, rather than direct price control, a hybrid regulatory model may be more suitable for Nigeria's entertainment ecosystem. On that note, this author make these few suggestions:

• Encouraging tiered pricing that includes genuinely affordable options: offer incentives to promoters who reserve a minimum of 40% of their tickets as "General Admission" at a price not exceeding 15% of the national minimum wage.
• Anti-Scalping Laws: Nigeria lacks robust anti-scalping legislation. We need regulations that prohibit the resale of tickets at more than 10% above face value, preventing the "secondary market" from pricing out fans.
• Subsidy for Local Venues: Government-owned venues (like the National Theatre) should be leased at subsidised rates to artists who commit to "average-earner-friendly" pricing.

Such measures align with the FCCPA's consumer protection objectives while preserving creative freedom and market sustainability.

Conclusion

While public frustration over Detty December concert prices is understandable, price regulation may do more harm than good. Under Nigerian law, the government's role is better framed around consumer protection, transparency, and competition enforcement not fixing prices in a private entertainment market, instead, the government should use its regulatory power to foster a "Social Contract" between artists and fans.

Afrobeats is Nigeria's greatest export, and we must ensure that the people who gave the music its soul are not left standing outside the gates of the party because they could not afford the cover charge. At the same time, any move towards regulation must be carefully grounded in existing legal frameworks or supported by targeted legislative amendments otherwise, Nigeria risks stifling one of its most globally competitive creative industries in the name of short-term affordability.

Footnotes

1. 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

2. FCCPC widens probe to curb exploitative airfares on South–South and South-East routes https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/12/fccpc-widens-probe-to-curb-exploitative-airfares-on-south-south-south-east-routes/#google_vignette accessed on 19th December 2025

3. Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018

4. Price Control Act of 1977

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.