3
FAO No. 42 of 2016.
4.
of
The learned counsels who have appeared on behalf
the
appellant
Company
and
the
petitioners
in
the
connected petitions have contended that; the Authority is
under a statutory obligation to ensure that the rights of the
licensees are duly protected; the Authority is under an
obligation to ensure that the licensees get reasonable
and
expected return; the services under the licenses can only be
discontinued or disconnected either under clause 6.21 or
clause 6.71; sub section (3) of section 54 of the Act of 1996
mandates that suspension of operations can only be justified
if
the
President
exercises
the
power
relating
to
the
proclamation of an emergency; the Federal Government,
through a policy directive issued under section 8 of the Act of
1996, cannot empower the Authority to suspend the cellular
services in disregard to the provisions of section 54; if
operations are suspended under section 54 then the Federal
Government is required to compensate the licensees for the
losses suffered by the latter; the expression ‘proclamation of
emergency by the President’ used in section 54 of the Act of
1996 has a nexus with Part X of the Constitution; section
54(3) of the Act of 1996 can only be invoked if there is a
proclamation of emergency under Articles 232 to 237; there
is no other provision which empowers the Authority or the
Federal Government to suspend the services; the practice
adopted by the Authority to direct the mobile cellular
operators to suspend its operations without prior notice or
information is without lawful authority and jurisdiction; the