On 21 October 2026, Nigeria’s House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee ordered the chief executives of MTN Nigeria, Airtel Nigeria, Globacom and Mafab Communications to appear before it within seven days, warning that refusal could result in arrest warrants. This demand comes while the Nigerian Communications Commission continues to enforce its newly introduced automatic consumer compensation framework for sub‑standard network performance.
Key facts:
- The committee, chaired by Rep. Olumide Osoba (APC‑Ogun), framed the issue as an economic threat, noting that mobile connectivity now underpins point‑of‑sale operations, financial transactions and everyday commerce.
- Osoba accused the CEOs of sending lower‑ranking staff instead of appearing personally, calling the practice unacceptable.
- In May 2026, the House had already criticised the NCC for weak oversight, urging tighter quality‑of‑service standards.
- The NCC’s framework, launched in April 2026, automatically compensates subscribers when network metrics fall below set thresholds.
- By September 2026, the commission reported that over 75 million subscribers received airtime or data compensation, with nearly three million refunds for failed transactions and more than 6,500 network interventions.
- Dr. Aminu Maida, NCC Executive Vice Chairman, cautioned that compensation alone cannot recover lost business opportunities or missed conversations.
What did the House committee demand?
The committee issued summons to the CEOs of the four major operators, giving them a week to attend a hearing in Abuja. It warned that non‑attendance would trigger arrest warrants, signalling a hard‑line stance on service quality failures.
How has the NCC’s compensation framework performed?
The framework, formally titled the Framework for Compensation of Consumers, shifts the burden of proof from subscribers to operators. Under the scheme, operators must automatically credit affected users when network performance dips below the thresholds defined in the Quality of Service Business Rules 2024.
Since its inception, the NCC claims more than 75 million users have been compensated for service lapses recorded between November 2025 and September 2026. Additionally, nearly three million users received refunds for failed airtime or data purchases, and operators carried out over 6,500 targeted network interventions during the same period.
Industry reaction has been mixed. The National Consumers Advocacy Network praised the automatic compensation model as a regulatory benchmark, while legal analysts at Tope Adebayo LP highlighted gaps such as the lack of a formal appeal mechanism for dissatisfied subscribers.
Why is there tension between the two bodies?
The clash stems from differing approaches to regulation. The NCC relies on data‑driven, technocratic enforcement, verifying operator compliance independently and applying both monetary and non‑monetary sanctions. In contrast, the House’s parliamentary oversight has taken a confrontational tone, using public hearings, arrest threats and media‑focused questioning.
Such aggressive legislative intervention can divert senior executives from infrastructure investment to courtroom appearances. In 2025, mobile operators and tower companies collectively invested N2.5 trillion in network upgrades, yet service complaints persist due to rapid urban growth, vandalism of infrastructure and chronic power shortages.
When lawmakers publicly question the NCC’s competence while the regulator is still rolling out its framework, the market receives mixed signals, potentially weakening the regulator’s credibility and the effectiveness of the compensation scheme.
What does the sector need?
All stakeholders agree that Nigerian telecom subscribers deserve reliable service. The compensation framework offers a structural remedy by imposing automatic financial penalties for service failures, removing the procedural burden from consumers and aligning Nigeria’s approach with global best practice.
For the framework to mature, the legislature should reinforce, rather than undermine, the NCC’s enforcement authority. This means holding the commission accountable for the speed and rigor of its verification processes, while allowing it to continue refining the data‑driven model.
Addressing root causes—such as infrastructure vandalism, right‑of‑way disputes and unreliable power supply—remains essential. A collaborative approach, where the House supports the NCC’s technical mandate instead of bypassing it, would better serve the millions of Nigerians who rely on mobile connectivity for daily commerce.
Segun Olusoga, public analyst, Abuja