6 FAO No. 42 of 2016. 7. The learned counsels have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance. 8. The controversy in the instant appeal and the connected petitions is regarding the power and jurisdiction vested in the Federal Government or the Authority to direct the service providers licensed under the Act of 1996 to suspend the mobile cellular services to their customers. The questions which emerge for consideration are in the context of the powers vested in the Federal Government under section 8 of the Act of 1996 to empower the Authority, through a policy directive, to pass orders and directions relating to the suspension of mobile cellular services. The adjudication essentially involves interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1996, particularly sections 8 and 54(3) ibid. This Court is also required to examine whether the Policy Directive is in conflict with section 54 of the Act of 1996 and, if so, then the ensuing consequences. In essence, this Court has to determine the scope of the powers vested in the Federal Government and the Authority to direct the licensed service providers of mobile cellular services to suspend its operations. 9. In order to answer these questions it would be beneficial to examine the relevant provisions of the Act of 1996. The Act of 1996 was, inter alia, promulgated to provide