The Iustum Center for Democracy and Governance (ICEDEG Africa), a public policy think tank and consumer rights advocacy organisation, has called for a review of the ECOWAS Regional Competition Framework to strengthen consumer protection and provide more effective avenues for redress.
The organisation also urged national competition authorities and consumer protection commissions across the ECOWAS sub-region to review their respective laws to provide for Private Collective Enforcement (PCE) as a complement to existing public enforcement mechanisms.
The call was made during the inaugural annual conference of the ECOWAS Regional Competition Authority (ERCA) in Banjul, where Nana Kwasi Asuman-Frimpong, Chairman of the Advisory Council of ICEDEG Africa, spoke on the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in enforcing consumer rights under the ECOWAS Regional Competition Framework.
Asuman-Frimpong said the largely public-centred approach to addressing consumer harm in West Africa often fails to provide direct redress to affected consumers, thereby limiting the effectiveness of consumer protection mechanisms.
He said consumers frequently suffer financial and other forms of harm without receiving compensation because of market informality, information asymmetry, fragmented and outdated legal regimes, limited access to redress, institutional overlaps and the growing complexity of digital and cross-border markets.
He noted that consumers often suffer relatively small but widespread losses, making it economically impractical for individuals to pursue separate legal claims because of the costs and complexity involved.
Comparative approaches
Asuman-Frimpong said enforcement under the ECOWAS Regional Competition Framework and in several member states remains largely dependent on public institutions and regulatory authorities.
He explained that public enforcement generally focuses on regulatory compliance and sanctions, while consumers who suffer harm may not necessarily receive restitution, compensation, repairs, replacements or other forms of direct redress.
He cited the United Kingdom, European Union, United States and South Africa as examples of jurisdictions where various forms of private and collective enforcement allow qualified consumer organisations, associations and representative bodies to pursue actions in the collective interests of consumers.
He particularly cited South Africa as an example of how legislatively recognised collective consumer redress could operate within an African legal framework.
Private collective enforcement
Asuman-Frimpong said PCE would enable private actors, working alongside state institutions, to aggregate individual consumer claims and pursue representative actions.
He argued that such a mechanism could help address information asymmetry, low-value individual claims and disproportionate litigation costs, while reducing transaction costs and creating stronger avenues for compensation and redress.
He stressed that PCE should not replace existing public enforcement structures, but should complement the work of ERCA, national competition authorities, consumer commissions and other state institutions.
According to him, empowering qualified consumer organisations and CSOs could provide a coordinated response to systemic consumer harm while strengthening access to restitution, compensation and other forms of redress.
Recommendations
Asuman-Frimpong recommended a review of the ECOWAS Regional Competition Framework and domestic competition and consumer protection laws to provide qualified consumer-focused CSOs with the necessary legal standing to bring structured market complaints before ERCA, domestic courts and alternative dispute resolution forums.
He also called for clear procedures for injunctive relief and representative redress, as well as statutory-backed and cost-effective mechanisms to make collective consumer enforcement financially accessible.
He further recommended effective information-sharing arrangements between ERCA, ECOWAS member states, national regulators and qualified CSOs, subject to applicable data protection laws.
Asuman-Frimpong maintained that strengthening the role of CSOs would not diminish the authority of public regulators, but would establish a complementary enforcement system capable of translating consumer welfare objectives into practical avenues for consumer redress.