CBN has been dragged to court over an unlawful and unjust ATM fee increase in Nigeria.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has taken legal action against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over its decision to increase Automated Teller Machine (ATM) transaction fees, describing the move as unlawful, unfair, unreasonable, and unjust.
The CBN recently introduced new charges, stipulating that ATM withdrawals made at machines owned by a bank but located outside its branch premises would attract a ₦100 fee per ₦20,000 withdrawal. Withdrawals from ATMs at shopping centres, airports, or standalone cash points would also incur an additional surcharge of up to ₦500 per ₦20,000 withdrawal.
ALSO: FG Reportedly Spends $8 Billion To Stabilize Naira
In the lawsuit, filed under suit number FHC/L/CS/344/2025 at the Federal High Court in Lagos, SERAP is seeking a judicial determination on whether the CBN’s decision aligns with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018. The organization argues that the fee hike is arbitrary and violates consumer protection laws.
SERAP is calling for a declaration that the fee increase contravenes sections 1(c) and (d), 104, 105, and 127(1) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, which it asserts are binding on the CBN. The organization is also seeking an interim injunction to halt the implementation of the new charges while the case is being heard.
In its argument, SERAP contends that the increase is inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution, the CBN Act, and international human rights obligations. The group asserts that the policy discriminates against low-income Nigerians who may struggle to afford the higher ATM charges.
According to SERAP, “The patently unlawful, unfair, unreasonable and unjust increase in ATM transaction fees also inherently contributes to violations of the human rights of socially and economically disadvantaged Nigerians.”
The lawsuit, filed by SERAP’s legal team, including Kolawole Oluwadare and Andrew Nwankwo, states that the CBN’s actions undermine its mandate to manage the economy effectively and promote sustainable development.
“The CBN is also failing to comply with the Nigerian Constitution, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, and the country’s international human rights obligations in the exercise of its statutory powers and functions,” the suit reads.
SERAP argues that rather than burdening consumers, the cost of ATM transactions should be borne by banks and their shareholders, given the substantial profits the financial sector generates annually. The organization also asserts that the increase in transaction fees is exploitative and disproportionately affects the economically vulnerable.
The CBN justified its decision through a circular dated February 10, 2025, citing a review of section 10(7) of the CBN Guide to Charges by Banks, Other Financial and Non-Bank Financial Institutions 2020. However, SERAP maintains that this decision violates consumer rights protections enshrined in the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act.
Citing various provisions of the law, SERAP argues that the CBN is in a dominant position and should not exploit consumers through excessive transaction fees. The group contends that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act applies to all commercial entities, including government agencies like the CBN, and that the bank must adhere to its regulations.
SERAP is asking the court for the following reliefs:
- A declaration that the CBN’s decision to increase ATM transaction fees is arbitrary, unfair, and unreasonable, violating consumer protection laws.
- A declaration that the CBN cannot unilaterally increase ATM fees without the consent of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
- An order nullifying the CBN’s circular issued on February 10, 2025, on ATM fee adjustments.
- A restraining order preventing the CBN and all financial institutions from enforcing the new charges.
The court has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the interim application and the substantive suit.
