Telecoms Services: 5 Issues Reps should address beyond CEO summonses

By Lukman Omikunle

The emerging scenario surrounding the House of Representatives’ summons of telecommunications company chief executives over poor network quality has drawn attention to the persistent frustration of subscribers.

But beyond the threats of arrest and the dispute over executives’ appearance before lawmakers, the episode presents an opportunity to confront the structural problems affecting telecommunications services in Nigeria.

For millions of Nigerians, unreliable connectivity means failed financial transactions, interrupted business operations, dropped calls and difficulty accessing essential digital services. While operators have a responsibility to maintain their networks and provide quality services, the conditions under which infrastructure is deployed and protected also influence service delivery.

From fibre-optic cable vandalism and multiple taxation to inconsistent right-of-way charges, poorly coordinated road construction and inadequate protection of critical infrastructure, several challenges require attention beyond the immediate dispute between lawmakers and industry executives.

In August, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) disclosed that more than 5,000 fibre-optic cable cuts were recorded in Nigeria during the first six months of 2026, largely associated with road construction, excavation and other civil works.

For the House, the opportunity lies in using its legislative responsibilities to address these obstacles, improve the environment for infrastructure investment and strengthen accountability across the sector.

Fibre-optic cables form a critical part of the infrastructure carrying data across telecommunications networks. They support mobile broadband, financial transactions, enterprise communications and other digital services. Damage to these cables can interrupt services across multiple locations, depending on the affected route and availability of alternative transmission links.

The NCC’s disclosure of more than 5,000 fibre cuts in the first half of 2026 highlights the scale of the problem.

Technology entrepreneur and public analyst, Israel Ihaza, has argued that the economic consequences of fibre damage extend beyond telecommunications companies.

“What they don’t understand is that these cables power economies,” Ihaza said, warning that damage could disrupt the financial ecosystem and banking services.

His observation reflects the growing dependence of businesses and households on digital connectivity. When network infrastructure is damaged, the effects can extend to point-of-sale terminals, mobile banking, online businesses and other services dependent on uninterrupted communications.

The House could examine the adequacy of existing penalties for deliberate vandalism, enforcement and the difficulties security agencies encounter in identifying and prosecuting offenders.

It could also work with the NCC, the Office of the National Security Adviser, security agencies and state governments to establish clearer responsibilities for protecting vulnerable installations.

The objective should be to distinguish deliberate vandalism from accidental damage while ensuring appropriate prevention, enforcement and remediation. Public awareness is equally important, as communities need to understand that fibre-optic cables support essential economic and public services.

Another issue requiring legislative attention is multiple taxation and the additional costs associated with deploying and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure.

Telecommunications networks require substantial capital investment in base stations, fibre-optic cables, transmission equipment, power systems and supporting facilities. Operators must continually expand and maintain these installations as demand for connectivity increases.

However, taxes, levies, permits and other charges imposed by different public authorities can add to the financial burden of deploying and maintaining infrastructure.

The concern is not that operators should be exempt from legitimate taxation, but whether overlapping demands, duplicative levies and inconsistent administrative practices impose avoidable costs on an industry requiring sustained investment.

Lawyer and public policy commentator, Ilemona Onoja, has identified multiple taxation, fibre vandalism and inconsistent right-of-way charges as structural problems lawmakers could address through legislation.

In his commentary on the summons dispute, Onoja argued that the National Assembly could tackle these challenges through its lawmaking powers rather than concentrate exclusively on compelling executives to attend hearings

The House could commission a comprehensive review of taxes, levies and infrastructure-related charges imposed on telecommunications operators by federal, state and local authorities.

Such a review should establish the legal basis of each charge, identify duplication and recommend a predictable framework for legitimate revenue collection.

It should also examine how these costs affect investment decisions, particularly in underserved communities where infrastructure deployment may already be commercially challenging.

A transparent fiscal framework would help operators plan expenditure while preserving government’s legitimate revenue responsibilities. For consumers, the wider objective is to create conditions that encourage network expansion, improve coverage and support more reliable services.

Closely connected to the taxation question is the issue of right-of-way charges, which determine part of the cost of obtaining permission to install fibre-optic cables along roads and other public corridors.

Although Nigeria has pursued policies aimed at harmonising these charges, differences in implementation, administrative procedures and additional requirements can complicate deployment across state boundaries.

Operators extending fibre routes may have to navigate different approval processes, documentation requirements and timelines. Where charges or procedures are inconsistent, planning becomes more difficult and infrastructure costs can rise.

The NCC’s Ease of Doing Business portal provides information on state-level right-of-way charges and infrastructure deployment procedures. However, a central information platform does not automatically resolve implementation disputes or guarantee consistent treatment across jurisdictions.

The House could work with state governments, the Nigerian Governors’ Forum, the NCC and industry stakeholders to assess compliance with existing harmonisation arrangements.

The review should establish whether approved charges are being applied consistently, whether additional fees have a valid legal basis and whether approval delays unnecessarily obstruct infrastructure deployment.

It should also examine clearer application timelines, standardised documentation and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms.

While respecting the lawful responsibilities of relevant authorities, those responsibilities should be exercised within a transparent framework that allows investors to understand the costs and requirements of infrastructure deployment.

More predictable right-of-way arrangements could support fibre expansion, reduce administrative costs and improve the commercial case for extending connectivity to underserved areas.

Another major challenge is the relationship between road construction and telecommunications infrastructure deployment. The expansion of roads and telecommunications networks should complement rather than undermine each other.

Yet inadequate coordination between road contractors and telecommunications operators has repeatedly resulted in damage to buried fibre-optic cables.

In February 2025, the NCC disclosed that Nigeria experienced more than 50,000 fibre-cut incidents in 2024, approximately 30,000 of which were attributed to federal and state road construction activities.

When contractors excavate roads without adequate information about underground installations, fibre cables may be damaged, interrupting services and requiring emergency repairs. Operators incur additional costs, while contractors and public authorities may face delays and expenses associated with reinstating affected infrastructure.

Dare Osamo, an energy expert and Chief Executive Officer of Impact Energy, has emphasised the wider economic consequences.

“The common people are the ones that bear the cost the most,” Osamo said, explaining that damaged fibre infrastructure could affect point-of-sale systems and related services.

His observation places the issue within the broader debate about the cost of unreliable infrastructure. A damaged cable may initially appear to be a telecommunications company problem, but its consequences reach traders, customers and businesses dependent on digital transactions.

The House could examine whether federal and state road agencies have effective procedures for notifying telecommunications operators before excavation begins.

It could also push for systematic mapping of underground utilities, joint site inspections and advance consultations involving contractors, infrastructure owners and relevant government agencies.

Where road projects are planned, the feasibility of installing telecommunications ducts alongside other utility infrastructure should be considered at the design stage. This would reduce repeated excavation and create opportunities for future network expansion without continually reopening completed roads.

The NCC has highlighted the need for stronger coordination and supported inter-agency efforts to prevent fibre damage. The legislative challenge is to ensure that coordination becomes an established requirement rather than depending on individual projects or the goodwill of participating agencies.

Beyond road construction and the associated risks to fibre infrastructure, the broader question of protecting telecommunications facilities as critical national assets also deserves attention.

Nigeria has taken an important step towards recognising the national significance of telecommunications infrastructure.

The Federal Government’s Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024, provides a framework for protecting designated information and communications technology systems, networks and facilities against damage and interference. The framework covers telecommunications infrastructure, including fibre-optic cables and other essential network facilities.

The challenge is ensuring that this recognition translates into effective protection, coordinated incident response and appropriate enforcement.

The House could examine implementation, including the responsibilities of security agencies, regulators, infrastructure operators and government departments involved in road construction and public works.

It could seek evidence on incident reporting, response times, prosecution of deliberate offenders and measures to reduce repeated damage to vulnerable installations.

Lawmakers could also examine whether existing arrangements provide adequate coordination between the NCC, the Office of the National Security Adviser, police, state authorities and telecommunications companies.

However, protecting critical infrastructure requires more than imposing penalties after damage has occurred. Operators must maintain effective recovery arrangements, while public authorities and contractors must take reasonable precautions before working near telecommunications installations.

A stronger protection framework should combine prevention, enforcement, public education and infrastructure resilience.

The House could also request periodic reports on fibre damage, restoration times, recurring hotspots and the effectiveness of preventive measures to determine whether existing policies are reducing disruptions.

The five areas also bring the discussion back to the central issue raised by the summonses: the relationship between legislative oversight and sector regulation.

The debate over the House’s summonses has raised questions about the constitutional limits of legislative investigations and the statutory responsibilities of the telecommunications regulator.

Sesan Bankole, a lawyer and public analyst, has argued that the National Assembly must operate within the constitutional limits of its investigative powers.

“Any investigation that goes beyond making laws or exposing corruption in the management of budgeted public funds is invalid,” Bankole said, citing his interpretation of Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution.

He has also maintained that the House cannot assume the NCC’s regulatory responsibilities, including the imposition of industry sanctions falling within the regulator’s statutory mandate.

Onoja has similarly questioned the constitutional basis of the summonses, arguing that legislative investigative powers should not intrude into the NCC’s regulatory responsibilities. He has also raised the issue of a related dispute reportedly pending before the courts.

These are legal arguments advanced by the lawyers, not a final judicial determination of the current dispute. The implications of the pending proceedings must be assessed against the issues before the court and applicable law.

The House, for its part, has maintained that it is acting in the public interest amid widespread complaints about service quality.

Consumers have a legitimate expectation of reliable services, and operators should account for their performance and fulfil their obligations under applicable laws and licence conditions.

At the same time, the NCC is the statutory sector regulator under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, with responsibilities for regulating operators and enforcing applicable service requirements.

The House can contribute by examining whether existing laws adequately address infrastructure protection, taxation, right-of-way administration and coordination between public works and telecommunications deployment.

Such an approach would focus legislative attention on issues that can be addressed through policy reform and lawmaking while allowing the regulator to discharge its statutory responsibilities.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the summonses presents an opportunity to examine the conditions affecting telecommunications services beyond the immediate disagreement over the appearance of company executives.

A meaningful legislative intervention would bring together the House, the NCC, telecommunications operators, state governments, construction companies, security agencies and consumer representatives to identify practical reforms.

The process should establish clear responsibilities, measurable targets and implementation timelines.

Its outcomes could include fewer fibre cuts, more predictable infrastructure charges, faster right-of-way approvals, improved coordination of road projects and more effective protection of critical telecommunications infrastructure.

Operators must also remain accountable for network investment, service quality, transparent communication and the handling of consumer complaints. Structural challenges do not remove those responsibilities.

But neither can service quality be examined comprehensively without considering the wider environment in which telecommunications networks are built and maintained.

For Nigerians increasingly dependent on digital transactions, communications and online services, the stakes extend beyond the telecommunications industry.

The ultimate measure of the House’s intervention should therefore be whether it helps reduce preventable disruptions, improves the conditions for infrastructure investment and contributes to more reliable services.

The number of executives summoned, or the severity of threats issued, cannot substitute for those outcomes. The more enduring contribution would be a legislative framework that protects the infrastructure behind connectivity and ensures that the country’s physical and digital development proceed together.

Lukman Omikunle writes from Lagos

The post Telecoms Services: 5 Issues Reps should address beyond CEO summonses appeared first on Vanguard News.