Nigerian National Assembly: Legal Expert Defines Telecom Regulation Limits

• The House of Representatives has threatened to arrest telecom CEOs for failing to appear before a committee investigating poor network quality.
• Lawyers argue the National Assembly lacks power to regulate telecom operators or impose sanctions, as these are NCC responsibilities.
• Constitutional provisions limit the National Assembly's investigative powers to law-making, amendment, and scrutinizing public funds, not general regulation of private entities.
• Legal precedents like *Senate v. Tony Momoh* emphasize that legislative investigations must serve constitutionally permitted purposes.
• A pending 2018 lawsuit by ALTON challenges legislative summonses, arguing such matters fall under the NCC's regulatory authority.

Any investigation that extends beyond law-making or exposing corruption in the management of public funds, according to Bankole, is constitutionally invalid.

A recent confrontation has emerged between the House of Representatives and telecommunications operators in Nigeria, stemming from concerns over persistent poor network quality. Lawmakers have threatened to issue arrest summonses against the chief executives of prominent telecom companies who failed to appear personally before a committee investigating service delivery. This committee has set a deadline of November 4, 2026, for these chief executives and other senior management officials to present themselves, explicitly warning that non-compliance could lead to their arrest.

This development follows earlier threats by the House of Representatives to issue warrants of arrest against telecom company chief executives who did not appear before its ad hoc committee, which was also tasked with investigating the ongoing issue of substandard network services. The legislative body's insistence on personal appearances and the threat of arrest highlight a growing tension regarding the scope of parliamentary oversight in the telecommunications sector.

Legal expert Sesan Bankole has asserted that the Nigerian National Assembly lacks the authority to regulate telecommunications operators or impose sanctions on them, arguing that such responsibilities are exclusively vested in the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). While acknowledging the National Assembly's right to invite operators for information in the public interest, Bankole emphasizes that these actions must strictly adhere to the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

Bankole points to Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the National Assembly investigative powers for the specific purposes of making or amending laws and scrutinizing the conduct of authorities managing appropriated public funds. He contends that this provision does not confer general regulatory powers over privately owned telecommunications companies. Any investigation that extends beyond law-making or exposing corruption in the management of public funds, according to Bankole, is constitutionally invalid. Public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja echoes this sentiment, questioning the constitutional basis of the summons and arguing that private telecom companies do not automatically fall under the National Assembly's investigative powers simply because their services impact the public. Both legal professionals cite the precedent set in *Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh (1981)*, with Onoja also referencing the *2023 Court of Appeal decision in SPDC v. Speaker of the House of Representatives*, to underscore that legislative investigations must be tied to constitutionally permitted objectives.

A core aspect of the legal challenge revolves around the appropriate regulatory body and the requirement for personal appearances. Bankole firmly states that the power to regulate and impose fines within the telecom sector belongs solely to the NCC, highlighting the distinct **NCC regulatory powers telecom**. He also disputes the committee's insistence that chief executives must appear personally, noting that companies are legal entities capable of appointing authorized representatives to speak on their behalf.

Under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, a telecommunications company, as a legal entity, is fully entitled to be represented by any individual duly appointed for that purpose. This legal provision directly impacts the **House of Representatives telecom summons legality**, suggesting that demanding the personal presence of a CEO when a designated corporate representative is available may exceed legislative authority.

The current legislative summonses are further complicated by existing legal proceedings. Bankole has described the summons as *sub judice*, citing a related lawsuit initiated by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) in 2018, which remains pending before the courts. This **ALTON legislative summons lawsuit** specifically challenges repeated legislative summonses of telecommunications executives, arguing that the matters in question fall squarely within the NCC's regulatory jurisdiction.

Both Bankole and Onoja acknowledge the public's legitimate concerns regarding poor telecommunications services. However, they question whether summoning company executives in this manner is the appropriate or constitutionally sound method to address these issues, especially given the ongoing litigation that seeks to clarify the precise **Nigerian National Assembly telecom regulation limits**.

Lawyers advising telecommunications operators or other private entities in Nigeria should note the constitutional limits on the National Assembly's investigative powers, particularly when a dedicated regulatory body exists. This article provides key arguments and precedents to challenge legislative summonses that may overstep constitutional boundaries or demand personal appearances from CEOs when corporate representation is sufficient. Compliance officers should be aware of these legal boundaries when responding to parliamentary inquiries.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH Online