Switzerland will be without leading scorer Johan Manzambi for Saturday’s World Cup quarter-final against Argentina, coach Murat Yakin said ⁠on Friday, dealing a blow to the Swiss as they prepare to face the reigning champions in Kansas City.

Manzambi, who has three goals and two assists at the tournament, also missed Switzerland’s ‌penalty shootout victory over Colombia in the last 16 after suffering a knee injury, and Yakin said the midfielder had failed to ‌recover in time.

“We tried everything that we could to get him back; unfortunately, he’s unable to ‌perform tomorrow,” Yakin said.

“Johan Manzambi is in a lot of pain. It was a shock to all of ‌us. This momentum was on his side, and there is so much joy when he plays ‌football.”

Captain Granit Xhaka dismissed suggestions Switzerland, who have made the quarter-finals for the first time in 72 years, were preoccupied with eight-times Ballon d’Or winner Lionel Messi, insisting the focus was on upsetting Argentina.

Former Germany goalkeeper Jens Lehmann had raised eyebrows ‌this week when he claimed on German television that Swiss players ⁠appeared to have “too much respect” for Messi and only ‌wanted to leave the game with the Argentine captain’s shirt.

“We cannot influence what people say about us,” Xhaka told ​reporters on Friday. “The only thing we can do is we can perform and show what we can do on the pitch. Nothing else matters.”

Yakin suggested the best way to limit Messi’s ​influence was to deny him possession altogether. “When we have the ball, then he won’t be able to act as much,” he said. “We just try to play our game and not allow him to play ⁠the ball.

“There are many solutions, and ​we try to find the best solution. Tomorrow, on the pitch, we will perform as a unit. We will try to play good passes, press high against an Argentinian team, the reigning champions.”

The Abuja Federal High Court has affirmed the statutory authority of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate consumer complaints relating to the pricing of airline tickets.

The court clarified that the Commission’s investigative powers under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA, 2018) are distinct from the exercise of a power to regulate price.

In a judgment delivered on June 29, Honourable Justice B.F.M. Nyako dismissed the suit filed by Air Peace Limited challenging the Commission’s authority to investigate complaints concerning possible exploitative ticket pricing.

The ruling is consistent with a ruling earlier in April 2026 by Justice James Omotosho in another suit filed by Air Peace contesting the Commission’s power to investigate consumer complaints and issue summons in the exercise of its statutory mandate.

In the April ruling, Justice Omotosho dismissed the airline’s contention as unreasonable.


The latest judicial interpretation by Justice Nyako arose from a suit filed by Air Peace in 2025 following the Commission’s request for information from Air Peace in January 2025 after widespread consumer complaints over substantial increases in airfares on certain domestic routes in December 2024.

Air Peace argued that the Commission lacked authority to inquire into airfare pricing unless the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had first invoked the price regulation provisions of the FCCPA.

The airline therefore sought declarations that the Commission lacked authority to investigate the matter, together with orders perpetually restraining it from doing so.

However, Justice Nyako rejected those arguments. She held that the Commission acted within its investigative powers under Sections 17, 32 and 33 of the FCCPA when it sought information from Air Peace in response to consumer complaints.

The court considered the request to be part of a lawful investigation, dismissing the argument that it amounted to the exercise of statutory price regulation or price control powers under Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the Act.

It stated that the Commission did not direct Air Peace to reduce its fares, prescribe a pricing formula, impose any price or declare the airline’s fares unlawful.

The Court further held that accepting Air Peace’s interpretation would effectively prevent the Commission from investigating complaints relating to pricing unless the President had first invoked Section 88 of the FCCPA.

Such an interpretation, the Court found, would undermine the Commission’s investigative powers whenever pricing complaints arose and could not have been the intention of the legislature.

Reacting to the judgment, the Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Tunji Bello, described the decision as an important judicial affirmation of the Commission’s statutory responsibility to investigate market conduct where there are reasonable grounds to believe consumers or competition may be adversely affected.

“The Court has again affirmed an important principle under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act. Investigating consumer complaints is fundamentally different from regulating prices.

The FCCPC neither sought to fix nor regulate Air Peace’s fares. It simply exercised its lawful authority to obtain information as part of an investigation into a matter of legitimate consumer concern.

“An investigation is a fact-finding process. It is neither a finding of liability nor an enforcement action. Every responsible regulator must be able to inquire into credible complaints affecting consumers and markets without those inquiries being misconstrued as findings of liability, enforcement action or price regulation.”

He said the judgment provides important judicial clarity on the scope of the Commission’s investigative powers while confirming that the exercise of statutory price regulation powers remains governed by the separate legal framework established under the FCCPA.

Bello reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to exercising its statutory mandate fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rule of law.

By Augustine Akhilomen

Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has issued a strict seven-day ultimatum to President Bola Tinubu, demanding that he either act on the Federal Audit Service Bill or resign from office.

Atiku, in a statement issued on Friday by Phrank Shaibu, his spokesperson, expressed concerns over Tinubu’s continued delay to conclude action on the Federal Audit Service Bill months after it was transmitted by the National Assembly.

He described the delay as yet another example of an administration that appears increasingly indifferent to constitutional discipline, institutional accountability and the rule of law.

The former Vice President cited Section 58(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which stipulates that “Where a Bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.”



“That provision is neither decorative nor discretionary. It is a constitutional command. The framers of our Constitution never envisaged a President who would simply sit on legislation indefinitely while governance drifts without certainty or accountability,” Atiku stated.

According to him, the Federal Audit Service Bill was designed to modernise Nigeria’s audit architecture, strengthen the independence of the Auditor-General and improve oversight of public expenditure, adding that delaying action on legislation meant to reinforce transparency sends the wrong message at a time when Nigerians are demanding stronger institutions.

“Every major scandal begins with a smaller act of institutional neglect. It begins when constitutional provisions are treated as optional, when oversight institutions are weakened and when those entrusted with enforcing the law become comfortable operating outside its clear boundaries,” he said.

Atiku linked this pattern to the recent controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), saying that regardless of what ongoing investigations or official processes eventually establish, the episode exposed the dangers of weak institutional safeguards, conflicting official narratives and declining public confidence in governance.

“If constitutional timelines can be ignored without consequence, if accountability legislation can remain unattended beyond the period contemplated by the Constitution, and if institutions responsible for safeguarding public resources are denied the reforms they require, then no Nigerian should be surprised when controversies emerge over public institutions, government approvals and official processes,” he said.

He warned that treating one constitutional obligation as optional inevitably weakens respect for every other constitutional safeguard.

The former Vice President therefore gave Tinubu a seven-day ultimatum to comply with the constitutional obligation imposed by Section 58(4), either by assenting to the Federal Audit Service Bill and formally communicating to the National Assembly and Nigerians his reasons for withholding assent, or by voluntarily quitting office.