Who Really Controls Nigeria’s Telecoms? – Reps’ Summons Raises Questions

The House of Representatives’ decision to summon telecommunications chief executives over persistent poor network services continues to spark important debate about accountability, regulatory responsibility and the constitutional limits of legislative oversight.

For millions of Nigerians, dropped calls, slow internet speeds, failed airtime and data transactions, and inadequate network coverage remain familiar frustrations.

With telecommunications now central to banking, commerce, education, public safety and everyday communication, poor service has consequences beyond inconvenience.

Lawmakers therefore have a legitimate responsibility to respond to subscribers’ complaints.

However, the controversy surrounding the House committee’s insistence that company chief executives appear personally, after rejecting an attempt by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) chairman, Gbenga Adebayo, to represent the industry, raises a broader question: how can legislative scrutiny promote accountability without assuming responsibilities assigned to another institution?

The ad hoc committee, chaired by Olumide Osoba, initially invited the chief executives of MTN Nigeria, Airtel Nigeria, Globacom and Mafab Communications to appear on October 28.

Following their failure to attend personally, the committee renewed its invitation, setting November 4 as a fresh deadline and warning that non-compliance could attract arrest.

The House maintains that operators hold individual licences and should account for their respective services. Its position reflects the principle that companies providing essential services must answer questions about their performance.

Yet, the legal basis and scope of such scrutiny remain important.

Constitutional boundaries

At the centre of the dispute is Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to investigate matters within its legislative competence and the conduct of authorities responsible for executing laws or administering public funds appropriated by the legislature.

Section 88(2) identifies purposes including exposing corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution of laws and administration of appropriated funds. Section 89 provides additional powers, including summoning persons to give evidence or produce documents.

Lawyer and public analyst, Sesan Bankole, argues that these provisions do not give lawmakers a general power to regulate private businesses.

“Any investigation that goes beyond making laws or exposing corruption in the management of budgeted public funds is invalid,” Bankole said.

He maintained that the National Assembly cannot assume the regulatory responsibilities of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

“And they can’t regulate or impose fine; that is the work of the regulator, which is the NCC,” he insisted.

Bankole also questioned the insistence on personal attendance by chief executives, arguing that companies, as legal entities, could appoint authorised representatives.

“By the Companies and Allied Matters Act, a telecom is a legal entity that can be represented by any such person appointed by the legal entity,” he explained.

The judicial verdicts

Lawyer and public policy commentator, Ilemona Onoja, has also questioned the constitutional basis of the summons.

In an October 26 commentary published by TheCable, Onoja cited Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh and the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in SPDC v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, arguing that legislative investigations must remain connected to constitutionally permitted purposes.

He also raised concerns about the pending litigation reportedly instituted by ALTON against the National Assembly in 2018 over legislative summonses of telecommunications executives.

Onoja considers the latest proceedings potentially affected by the pending case.

He labelled the federal lawmakers’ action subjudice.

The regulator’s responsibility

The NCC, established under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, has statutory responsibility for regulating the communications industry, protecting consumers, monitoring compliance with licence conditions and enforcing quality-of-service requirements.

Its mandate includes setting performance standards and taking regulatory action where operators fail to meet applicable obligations.

The commission has also introduced a compensation framework for subscribers affected by poor service. It has reported more than 6,500 network interventions in 2026, with about 75 million subscribers receiving compensation for service failures and nearly three million receiving refunds for failed airtime and data transactions.

These interventions demonstrate that regulatory action is already taking place.

They also raise questions about whether enforcement has delivered sufficient improvements in subscribers’ experience.

The National Assembly nevertheless has a legitimate role in examining the effectiveness of existing laws, questioning regulatory performance and proposing legislative changes.

The key difference is between scrutinising the regulator and taking over its operational responsibilities.

Beyond the summons

Onoja has identified practical areas where lawmakers could make a lasting contribution: fibre-optic cable vandalism, multiple taxation, inconsistent right-of-way charges and inadequate coordination between road construction and fibre deployment.

Damage to fibre infrastructure during excavation and roadworks can disrupt services across affected locations, while inconsistent charges and multiple levies increase the cost of network expansion.

The National Assembly could engage state governments, strengthen protection for critical telecommunications infrastructure and promote coordination between road construction authorities and infrastructure owners.

Operators must equally account for their investment decisions, network maintenance and service obligations. Infrastructure challenges cannot excuse persistent service failures.

Ultimately, accountability must extend to every institution. Operators must deliver reliable services; the NCC must enforce its regulatory mandate; and lawmakers must exercise their constitutional responsibilities within enshrined scope while addressing structural obstacles to better connectivity.

The success should not be measured by whether chief executives appear before House committee or how forcefully they are questioned. It should be measured by whether the process produces clearer institutional responsibilities, stronger accountability and improvements subscribers can experience.

Nigeria needs effective telecommunications oversight, but its value will depend on institutions respecting their respective mandates and working towards the same public interest.