Telecom CEOs’ Summons: Election-Year Oversight Or Recurring Legislative Pressure?

The House of Representatives’ decision to summon telecommunications chief executives over persistent poor network services has reopened questions about legislative oversight, regulatory responsibility and the structural challenges affecting connectivity in Nigeria.

The House ad hoc committee investigating telecom service quality directed the chief executives of MTN Nigeria, Airtel Nigeria, Globacom and Mafab Communications to appear on October 28, 2026, after some operators reportedly failed to honour earlier invitations.

The committee, chaired by Olumide Osoba, also threatened arrest summons to compel attendance and directed the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to ensure compliance.

Osoba said telecommunications had become indispensable to the economy, supporting businesses, financial transactions and point-of-sale operations. The concerns are significant: unreliable connectivity affects consumers, businesses and services increasingly dependent on digital infrastructure.

But the latest action raises questions beyond the operators’ performance. What is the appropriate scope of legislative intervention in a sector with an established regulator, and how should the effectiveness of such interventions be assessed?

The infrastructure challenges are substantial.

According to NCC Quality of Experience data reported by Technext, 44,678 fibre-related incidents were recorded between January and September 2026. The categories included 17,462 degradation incidents, 9,283 cases of vandalism and 9,008 cable connection problems. 

In August, NCC chief executive Aminu Maida disclosed that more than 5,000 fibre-cut incidents had occurred in the first half of the year in connection with road construction, excavation and related civil works.

“To a machine operator on a construction site, it may appear to be one buried cable. To the nation, it can mean failed calls, stalled payments, interrupted services and missed opportunities,” Maida said at a stakeholders’ workshop on fibre protection.

He called for better coordination among road contractors, operators and government agencies, arguing that physical infrastructure expansion must not undermine the digital networks supporting economic activity.

The NCC has also identified vandalism, theft and restricted access to telecom facilities as threats to service reliability. These factors complicate the assessment of poor network performance, but do not remove operators’ responsibility to explain service failures and demonstrate improvements.

Investment figures add another dimension. Data reported by the NCC indicated that mobile network operators invested more than N2.13 trillion in infrastructure and upgrades in 2025, while tower companies committed N373.8 billion.

The combined investment exceeded N2.5 trillion, supporting the addition or upgrade of more than 2,800 telecom sites.

The spending raises questions about how investment is translating into better service, particularly in congested areas and locations experiencing recurring disruptions. Operators must account for their performance, while assessments must also consider infrastructure damage, power challenges, security and access restrictions.

The NCC’s own performance is equally relevant. Its statutory responsibilities include monitoring service quality, enforcing regulatory standards and protecting consumers. The central question is what its monitoring and enforcement have achieved, and how its interventions are addressing persistent service failures.

The relationship between the legislature and telecom operators has also been strained.

In 2018, the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), then led by Gbenga Adebayo, approached the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking clarification of the National Assembly’s oversight powers over private telecom companies.

ALTON disclosed that operators were receiving repeated invitations from different committees, sometimes on overlapping issues.

The association also questioned insistence on the personal attendance of chief executives when other senior officials might be better placed to answer technical questions.

The litigation raised questions about the scope of legislative oversight, demands for company information and the burden of multiple invitations. The final outcome of the case has not been independently verified for this report.

The House also investigated telecom coverage in underserved communities and the utilisation of the Universal Service Provision Fund in 2023, inviting operators, the NCC and other institutions to an inquiry. That precedent places the current investigation within a longer history of parliamentary scrutiny, but does not establish whether earlier interventions succeeded or failed.

The appearance of telecom investigations in 2023 and 2026, both ahead of general elections, makes the timing a legitimate subject for examination. 

The current situation ultimately turns on questions that require evidence rather than assumptions: what constitutional and legal powers underpin the committee’s actions; what matters fall within the inquiry’s terms of reference; and how does its work relate to the NCC’s regulatory mandate?

For operators, the public interest lies in reliable service and transparent explanations of network failures. For the NCC, it lies in demonstrable regulatory results.

While for the National Assembly, the relevant questions concern the legal basis, scope and effectiveness of its intervention.

Public authorities and contractors also have responsibilities where roadworks, vandalism or restricted access damage critical infrastructure.

With the 2027 election approaching, the summons deserves scrutiny alongside the longstanding dispute over repeated legislative invitations. But its significance should ultimately be assessed against the evidence presented, the legal framework and any verifiable improvements in connectivity.

Subscribers need reliable networks. Whether parliamentary hearings, regulatory enforcement and industry investment deliver that outcome remains a question.