By Emmanuella Opara | October 29th 2026
KEY POINTS
- Lawyer Sesan Bankole says the National Assembly cannot directly regulate telecommunications operators or impose fines, arguing that such powers belong to the Nigerian Communications Commission.
- The dispute follows the House of Representatives’ threat to issue arrest warrants against telecom executives over persistent poor network services.
- The House committee has given the executives and other senior management officials until November 4, 2026, to appear.
- Bankole and public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja argue that legislative investigations must fall within the purposes permitted by the Constitution.
- Onoja has urged lawmakers to address infrastructure challenges, including fibre-optic cable vandalism, multiple taxation and inconsistent right-of-way charges.
MAIN STORY
A lawyer, Sesan Bankole, has questioned the constitutional authority of the National Assembly to regulate telecommunications operators or impose sanctions on them, saying such responsibilities rest with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
His position follows a confrontation between the House of Representatives and telecommunications companies over persistent poor network quality. The House had threatened to issue arrest warrants against chief executives of major operators who failed to appear personally before its ad hoc committee investigating service delivery.
The committee subsequently directed the executives and other senior management officials to appear by November 4, 2026, warning that failure to comply could result in arrest.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Bankole said lawmakers could invite telecommunications operators to provide information in the public interest but must remain within the limits of their constitutional powers.
He cited Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution, which permits the National Assembly to conduct investigations to support lawmaking and examine the conduct of authorities responsible for administering funds appropriated by the legislature.
According to Bankole, the provision does not grant lawmakers general regulatory authority over privately owned telecommunications companies.
“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 operators and impose fines belongs to the industry regulator, the NCC. He also cited the case of Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh (1981) in support of his argument that legislative investigations must serve constitutionally permitted purposes.
Bankole further challenged the committee’s insistence that company chief executives appear in person, arguing that telecommunications firms could appoint authorised representatives to speak on their behalf under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.
He also described the summons as sub judice, citing a lawsuit instituted by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) in 2018. The suit reportedly challenges repeated legislative summonses of telecom executives over issues the association considers to fall within the NCC’s regulatory jurisdiction.
Lawyer and public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja has similarly questioned the constitutional basis of the summonses. In a published commentary, he cited the Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh case and the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in SPDC v. Speaker of the House of Representatives to argue that legislative summonses must be linked to constitutionally permitted purposes.
While acknowledging public complaints about poor network services, Onoja questioned whether summoning company executives was the most effective response. He also pointed to the pending ALTON litigation as a concern.
Instead, he urged lawmakers to address structural obstacles that increase the cost of telecommunications investment and network expansion.
These include the vandalism of fibre-optic cables, multiple taxation and inconsistent right-of-way charges imposed by different levels of government. Onoja argued that stiffer penalties for cable vandalism, harmonised right-of-way charges and measures to reduce multiple taxation could improve the conditions for infrastructure deployment.
The House committee, however, has maintained that each telecommunications operator holds an individual licence and should be prepared to account for its service delivery.
The dispute comes amid persistent complaints about dropped calls, slow internet speeds and inadequate network coverage, which affect businesses and everyday communication.
Telecommunications operators are licensed and regulated by the NCC under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, which provides the framework for industry oversight and enforcement of applicable quality-of-service requirements.
THE ISSUES
The dispute centres on the boundary between legislative oversight and regulatory authority. While lawmakers can investigate matters within their constitutional mandate, the lawyers argue that such powers should not be treated as a general licence to regulate private companies or impose penalties.
The pending ALTON lawsuit adds a legal dimension to the disagreement, although the source does not establish how the court will determine the issue or whether the latest summonses will be affected.
Poor telecommunications service remains a public concern, but the debate also raises the question of whether legislative hearings alone can resolve the infrastructure problems affecting network quality.
Fibre-optic cable vandalism, inconsistent right-of-way charges and multiple taxation can increase the cost of expanding networks. Addressing these obstacles could help operators deploy infrastructure, although the source provides no estimate of the potential cost savings or resulting improvement in service.
WHAT’S BEING SAID
“Any investigation that goes beyond making laws or exposing corruption in the management of budgeted public funds is invalid,” Sesan Bankole, lawyer, said.
“And they can’t regulate or impose fine; that is the work of the regulator, which is the NCC,” Sesan Bankole, lawyer, said.
“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,” Sesan Bankole, lawyer, said.
WHAT’S NEXT
The House committee has set November 4, 2026, as the deadline for the telecommunications executives and other senior management officials to appear.
The legal dispute over the scope of the National Assembly’s investigative powers remains relevant, with ALTON’s 2018 lawsuit cited by Bankole and Onoja as part of the ongoing disagreement.
Lawmakers also face calls to consider measures addressing infrastructure costs and network expansion, including penalties for fibre-optic cable vandalism and the harmonisation of right-of-way charges.
BOTTOM LINE
The disagreement over telecom executives’ summonses highlights competing views about how far the National Assembly can go in addressing poor network services. While lawmakers insist operators must account for service delivery, the lawyers argue that investigations must remain within constitutional limits and that improving network quality also requires attention to the costs and conditions of infrastructure investment.
