Poor Network: Lawyer Questions House of Reps’ Powers to Sanction Telecom Operators

A Nigerian lawyer, Sesan Bankole, has questioned the constitutional basis for the National Assembly to regulate telecommunications operators or impose sanctions on them, arguing that such responsibilities fall primarily within the mandate of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

Bankole’s position comes amid a dispute between the House of Representatives and telecommunications companies over persistent poor network services, following the lawmakers’ demand that operators’ chief executives appear before an ad hoc committee investigating service delivery.

The committee reportedly gave the executives and other senior management officials until November 4, 2026, to appear, warning that failure to comply could lead to arrest warrants.

In a statement issued on Thursday, October 29, Bankole said the National Assembly could invite telecommunications operators to provide information in the public interest but must exercise its powers within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

He cited Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for legislative investigations for specified purposes, including assisting the National Assembly to make laws and examining the conduct of authorities responsible for administering funds appropriated by the legislature.

According to him, the provision does not grant lawmakers unrestricted authority to investigate private companies or assume the regulatory functions of established government agencies.

“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 authority to regulate telecommunications operators and impose applicable industry sanctions rests with the NCC, established under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.

The commission’s statutory responsibilities include licensing operators, protecting telecommunications consumers, monitoring compliance with industry requirements and enforcing applicable quality-of-service regulations.

Bankole also questioned the insistence that the chief executives must personally attend the legislative hearing, arguing that the companies should be able to appoint authorised representatives to provide the requested information.

He further described the summons as potentially sub judice, citing a lawsuit reportedly instituted by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) in 2018 over repeated legislative invitations to telecommunications executives.

The suit was said to challenge the extent of the National Assembly’s authority to summon private telecommunications companies over matters considered to fall within the NCC’s regulatory jurisdiction.

However, the current status of the case and its precise implications for the latest summons could not be independently established from a court record during this research.

Bankole’s position is not the only legal argument raised in the dispute.

Lawyer and public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja has similarly questioned the constitutional basis of the summons, arguing that legislative investigations must be connected to purposes permitted by the Constitution.

Onoja cited previous judicial decisions, including the Court of Appeal’s 2023 decision in SPDC v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, in support of his argument that legislative summonses must have a lawful basis.

He also argued that lawmakers could address some of the structural problems affecting telecommunications services by tackling fibre-optic cable vandalism, multiple taxation and inconsistent right-of-way charges that increase the cost of expanding network infrastructure.

The dispute comes amid continuing complaints by subscribers about dropped calls, slow internet speeds, service interruptions and inadequate network coverage.

Under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, the NCC has specific responsibilities for protecting consumers and enforcing telecommunications service standards. The commission’s published regulations include provisions on service quality and administrative sanctions for applicable violations.

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether lawmakers can demand explanations about poor network services, but whether a particular investigation or summons falls within the constitutional powers of the legislature.

While Bankole maintains that the National Assembly cannot take over the NCC’s regulatory responsibilities, the precise legal limits applicable to the House committee’s proceedings would depend on the constitutional provisions, the purpose of the inquiry and any relevant judicial decisions.