The Importance of the House of Representatives Reclaiming Its Oversight Authority

The House of Representatives has a crucial role to reinforce its oversight responsibilities. By affirming the legitimacy of established regulations, delineating the boundaries of committee authority, and pledging to uphold fair and impartial oversight, the House can regain public trust in its governance. Such actions would not diminish the House's stature; rather, they would enhance it.

The House of Representatives holds a seminal position in Nigeria's constitutional framework. It is tasked not only with creating laws but also with upholding the rule of law through careful and unbiased oversight. When this duty is compromised, it results in repercussions that go beyond institutional disgraces, impacting the very essence of democratic governance. Recent developments concerning the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non- Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025 (referred to as DEON Regulations) bring into question whether this essential duty has been executed faithfully.

Oversight should not be misconstrued as a license to replace legislation with subjective opinions. It is neither a tool for temporarily halting valid regulations through committee correspondences, nor a means for granting informal exemptions to influential market entities. Nonetheless, the behavior of the Special Ad-Hoc Committee on Overlapping Jurisdictions, Procedural Gaps and Investor Concerns has suggested otherwise. By disseminating a letter that claimed to suspend binding regulations, the Committee overstepped its constitutional limits and veered into precarious territory.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has clarified that the DEON Regulations are still valid and enforceable. This clarification raises a critical issue: how did a committee of the House act in a way that undermines the very laws enacted by the National Assembly? Regulations created under an Act of Parliament are not advisory. They cannot be disregarded due to legislative discomfort, industry pressures, or perceived unease from investors. If the House believes any regulation is flawed, there are constitutional procedures available to remedy this — through amendments, repeals, or judicial reviews. Any other approach could be seen as an overreach.

Even more concerning is the apparent disregard for due process. A regulator due for an investigative hearing was not afforded a chance to present its case, while public declarations seemingly implied that conclusions had already been pre-established. Such actions contravene the principle of fair hearings and undermine the impartiality that legislative oversight necessitates. Oversight that starts with preconceived notions is not oversight; it is bias masquerading as procedure.

This misstep comes with tangible ramifications. By creating the notion that the DEON Regulations could be overlooked, the House inadvertently favored dominant telecommunications firms and their lending partners. This situation left smaller firms, which invested in compliance, vulnerable, while major incumbents enjoyed regulatory protection to maintain business as usual. This situation does not foster market fairness; it reflects a distortion permitted by silence.

When Parliament appears to align — whether intentionally or accidentally — with entrenched market powers, it jeopardizes Nigeria’s competitive framework and weakens consumer protections. Additionally, it sends a discouraging message to regulatory bodies that their authority is conditional, dependent on political favor rather than legal obligations. No competent regulatory mechanism can operate effectively under such conditions.

Members of the House must critically evaluate their oversight roles. Is this oversight being applied in the public's interest, or has it become a tool for accommodating influence? Is Parliament actively safeguarding consumers and market integrity, or facilitating regulatory loopholes for the powerful? History has shown that legislatures that fail to maintain this distinction often face unfavorable outcomes.

Nigeria’s evolving digital economy relies on robust institutions that respect delineated roles. Regulators need to regulate, courts are to interpret the law, and legislators must legislate and oversee without encroaching on executive or judicial powers. When these roles become blurred, the rule of law becomes negotiable, and the credibility of governance is compromised.

The House of Representatives has a chance to amend its trajectory. By reasserting the validity of properly enacted regulations, stipulating the limits of committee jurisdictions, and recommitting to impartial oversight, it can rebuild confidence in legislative governance. This move would not weaken the House’s position; instead, it would fortify it.

The alternative — permitting informal actions to undermine established regulations while corporations reap undue benefits — risks transforming oversight into complicity. This is a legacy that no accountable legislature should accept.

Bola Aliu, a technology journalist, writes from Lagos.