Lawyer and public policy commentator Ilemona Onoja has questioned the legality of the House of Representatives’ summons of chief executives of four Nigerian telecommunications companies, arguing that the move raises constitutional concerns and may overlap with a dispute already before the courts.
Gatekeepers News reports that Onoja’s comments follow an October 21, 2026, summons issued by an ad hoc committee of the House, directing the telecommunications executives to appear on October 28 to explain what lawmakers described as poor network quality. The invitation reportedly came with a threat of arrest for non-compliance.
In a commentary on the controversy, Onoja argued that the National Assembly’s investigative powers were constitutionally limited and should not encroach on the regulatory responsibilities of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
He cited Section 88(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to conduct investigations for the purpose of making laws and examining the conduct of authorities responsible for administering funds appropriated by the legislature.
According to him, privately owned telecommunications companies licensed by the NCC do not automatically fall within the scope of those investigative powers simply because their services have attracted public criticism.
“The question, however, is whether an ad hoc hearing is the right instrument, or whether the Constitution already provides a better one,” Onoja said.
He cited the 1981 Court of Appeal decision in Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh, which addressed the legislature’s power to summon a journalist, as well as the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in SPDC v. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
In the latter case, Shell challenged a legislative summons that allegedly lacked a sufficient connection to a lawful legislative purpose.
Onoja argued that the decisions highlighted the need for legislative investigations and summonses to remain within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
The lawyer also referred to a lawsuit reportedly instituted by the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) in 2018, challenging repeated summonses of telecommunications executives by legislative committees over matters said to fall within the NCC’s regulatory jurisdiction.
He said the dispute raised questions about the legal basis for the latest summons, although its implications would depend on the specific issues before the court and the status of the proceedings.
Onoja further referenced a January 2025 Federal High Court order concerning the summons of Sterling Bank’s chief executive over a private commercial dispute, alongside a March 2026 Court of Appeal decision in KCA Deutag v. House of Representatives.
He maintained that the Constitution did not grant lawmakers unrestricted investigative powers over the commercial activities of private businesses.
Lawyer Urges Reps to Address Structural Challenges
The controversy comes amid persistent complaints by telecommunications subscribers over dropped calls, slow internet speeds and service interruptions affecting businesses and everyday communication.
Onoja acknowledged the public frustration behind the lawmakers’ intervention but argued that compelling telecommunications executives to attend hearings would not, on its own, resolve the industry’s service-quality challenges.
“The frustration that drives this summons is legitimate. Millions of Nigerians contend with dropped calls, slow data speeds, and service interruptions that affect daily life and commerce,” he said.
He maintained that the NCC, established under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, was responsible for regulating the telecommunications industry and enforcing applicable quality-of-service requirements.
According to Onoja, the commission has imposed substantial penalties on operators for service-quality violations, introduced regulations and developed a compensation framework for affected subscribers.
He argued that the National Assembly could make a more lasting contribution by tackling structural obstacles to telecommunications infrastructure development, including fibre-optic cable vandalism, multiple taxation and inconsistent right-of-way charges imposed on operators.
“It could legislate stiffer penalties for fibre-optic cable vandalism,” he said.
Onoja added that lawmakers could also pursue the harmonisation of right-of-way charges and address multiple taxation, which he said increased the cost of deploying and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure.
He maintained that legislative action on these issues could reduce infrastructure costs, encourage network expansion and ultimately improve service delivery to subscribers.
The legal arguments regarding the summons and the status of the cited court proceedings were presented by Onoja. The account provided did not include a response from the House of Representatives or the NCC.
