The ruling comes just days after a conflicting decision in Lagos had cast uncertainty over the sector, highlighting the legal tug-of-war surrounding regulatory oversight of billboards, signage, and other advertising platforms across the country.
Conflicting Judgments Spark Industry Uncertainty
Tensions began on Friday, November 7, 2025, when the Federal High Court in Lagos, under Justice Akintayo Aluko, declared certain sections of the ARCON Act 2022 unconstitutional in the case of Massilia Motors Limited v. ARCON. Justice Aluko ruled that regulation of outdoor advertising falls exclusively within the purview of Local Government Councils, effectively limiting ARCON’s enforcement powers.
The decision was met with widespread acclaim from industry players. The Advertisers Association of Nigeria (ADVAN) hailed the ruling as a “breath of fresh air,” with lead counsel Dr. Kolawole Mayomi describing it as a victory against the “arbitrary provisions” of the ARCON Act.
Yet, the celebratory mood was short-lived.
The Lokoja Judgment: ARCON’s Powers Upheld
Just three days later, Honourable Justice Isa H. Dashen of the Federal High Court, Lokoja Division, delivered a comprehensive 52-page judgment in Godec Power Nigeria Ltd v. Attorney General of the Federation & ARCON (Suit No: FHC/LKJ/CS/20/2024) that directly contradicted the Lagos ruling. In his decision, Justice Dashen upheld ARCON’s authority to approve and regulate all forms of advertising across Nigeria, grounding the regulatory power firmly in the Constitution.
The judgment clarified that the National Assembly acted within its legislative mandate in enacting the ARCON Act 2022, citing Items 49, 62, and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, which cover professional occupations, trade and commerce, and incidental matters. “Advertising, being the communicative vehicle of trade and commerce, is manifestly incidental to those heads of legislative power,” Justice Dashen wrote. “It is also an organized professional occupation akin to the disciplines expressly regulated under Item 49.”
Implications for Advertising and Regulation
Justice Dashen dismissed arguments that ARCON’s authority should apply only to advertising professionals, emphasizing that Section 2(2) of the ARCON Act extends regulatory oversight to “any person who engages in, regulates, sponsors, or takes benefit of advertising, advertisement or marketing communication services.”
He also drew comparisons with other professional regulatory frameworks, such as the Engineers (Registration etc.) Act and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, noting that these laws similarly extend sanctions to all participants within the field, not solely 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 judgment states.
A Defining Moment for Nigeria’s Advertising Sector
Legal experts believe the Lokoja decision is likely to become a defining precedent for regulatory jurisdiction in Nigeria’s fast-growing advertising industry. By affirming ARCON’s nationwide authority, the judgment provides a clearer legal framework for enforcement, potentially curbing the inconsistencies that have previously hampered regulatory oversight.
The contrasting rulings in Lagos and Lokoja underscore ongoing tensions between local and federal oversight, but for now, ARCON’s powers appear solidly enshrined in law, setting the stage for a more coordinated approach to regulating the nation’s advertising landscape.
Outdoor Advertising: Content Rules, Not Just Structure
A key feature of the Lokoja judgment is the Federal High Court’s nuanced distinction between regulating the content of advertisements and regulating the structures on which they appear. Justice Isa H. Dashen clarified that while Local Government Councils maintain authority over the physical placement, licensing, and maintenance of billboards and signage, ARCON’s jurisdiction specifically governs the content, quality, and ethical standards of the messages displayed.
“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 notes. “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 interpretation effectively allows both Local Government Councils and ARCON to exercise concurrent jurisdiction within their respective domains—a development that industry stakeholders describe as bringing long-awaited clarity to a historically contentious regulatory space.
Constitutional Rights and Reasonable Limitations
Godec Power Nigeria Ltd had argued that ARCON’s requirement for prior approval of advertisements violated Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. Justice Dashen firmly rejected this claim, invoking Section 45(1) of the Constitution, which allows limitations on rights that are “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 court stated. Justice Dashen referenced the Court of Appeal’s ruling in President of the FRN v. Isa (2015), noting that statutory regulation serving legitimate public objectives does not infringe constitutional rights.
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
Legal analysts predict several passages from Justice Dashen’s judgment will become central references 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 complementary 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.”
By distinguishing content regulation from structural oversight, the judgment provides a framework for harmonious governance of advertising in Nigeria, ensuring both local authorities and ARCON can operate within their constitutional mandates without overstepping one another.
Here’s a polished, article-style rewrite of your “Costs and Consequences” section, integrated with context and analysis, flowing naturally for publication:
Financial and Regulatory Implications for Godec and the Industry
The Federal High Court in Lokoja has imposed costs of N500,000 against Godec Power Nigeria Ltd in favor of both defendants—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, Godec now faces not only the financial burden of the court’s ruling but also the prospect of ARCON enforcement action for any advertisements that were not pre-approved. The judgment explicitly validates the Notice of Violation issued to Godec, as well as similar enforcement measures that the regulatory body may take across the country.
Contradictory Rulings and Industry Uncertainty
The back-to-back contradictory rulings delivered by courts in Lagos and Lokoja have created what legal analysts describe as an unprecedented situation in Nigeria’s advertising regulatory landscape. The irony is compounded by Justice Akintayo Aluko’s role: in April 2025, he upheld ARCON’s broad powers in the Digi Bay Limited (Betway) case, only to partially reverse that stance seven months later in Massilia Motors Limited v. ARCON.
This has left the advertising industry in a state of practical uncertainty. Should advertisers strictly comply with ARCON’s pre-approval requirements? Can Local Government Councils independently regulate advertising content? What happens if ARCON and local government standards conflict? And in the case of a national advertising campaign, how many local authorities must a company navigate?
Modern Advertising Meets Expanded Regulation
The dispute over ARCON’s powers reflects broader changes in Nigeria’s advertising ecosystem. The 2022 ARCON Act replaced the old Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) framework, expanding oversight beyond registered practitioners to include brands, digital platforms, influencers, and content creators.
This legislative expansion responds to the realities of contemporary marketing, where traditional agency-client dynamics are disrupted by social media campaigns, influencer marketing, and direct-to-consumer digital strategies. The central legal question has been whether such sweeping regulation is constitutionally valid. The Lokoja ruling affirms that it is—so long as federal oversight of content and local oversight of physical structures remain distinct.
Regional Implications: A Template for Other Courts
Legal observers predict that the Lokoja judgment could serve as a template for other courts confronted with similar challenges to ARCON’s authority. Its comprehensive analysis, including comparisons to other professional regulatory frameworks, provides detailed guidance on balancing federal regulatory powers with local government responsibilities.
As the advertising landscape continues to evolve, the key question remains: what comes next? Advertisers, regulators, and local authorities alike will be watching closely as this landmark ruling shapes compliance practices and enforcement strategies across Nigeria.