Get Guardian on GoogleTelecommunications operators have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging the constitutional powers of the House of Representatives to investigate service quality in the industry.
The operators, in an originating summons filed on November 4, 2026, are asking the court to determine the extent of the National Assembly’s investigative powers, particularly whether the House can investigate private telecommunications companies over service quality when the sector is already subject to statutory regulation by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
The plaintiffs are the Registered Trustees of the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, Airtel Networks Limited, Globacom Limited and Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited, operators of 9mobile.
The suit, numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/2713/2026, lists the House of Representatives, its Speaker, Clerk and the Inspector-General of Police as defendants.
The operators are seeking an interpretation of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, particularly whether the legislature’s investigative powers are restricted to the purposes prescribed under Section 88(2), including lawmaking and exposing corruption, inefficiency or waste in the administration of laws and management of public funds appropriated by the National Assembly.
They are also questioning whether the House can investigate private telecommunications companies that do not administer laws or manage public funds appropriated by the legislature.
The legal action challenges summonses dated October 29, 2026, requiring the chief executives of the companies to appear before the House Ad-Hoc Committee on Telecommunications Quality of Service and produce relevant documents.
The plaintiffs are further asking the court to determine whether the House has constitutional authority to issue arrest warrants to compel the attendance of the operators’ executives.
They argue that the Nigerian Communications Commission has statutory responsibility for establishing, monitoring and enforcing telecommunications service-quality standards under the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, and the 2024 Quality of Service Regulations.
The operators’ position has also featured in arguments by legal practitioners over the boundaries between legislative oversight and the regulatory responsibilities of specialised government agencies.
A legal practitioner, Sesan Bankole, had argued that although the National Assembly could invite telecommunications operators in the public interest, its investigative powers must remain within the constitutional purposes prescribed under Section 88.
“Any investigation that goes beyond making laws or exposing corruption in the management of budgeted public funds is invalid,” Bankole said.
He also distinguished between legislative oversight and industry regulation, arguing that lawmakers could not assume the powers of the NCC.
“And they can’t regulate or impose fine; that is the work of the regulator, which is the NCC,” he said.
On the appearance of chief executives before the committee, Bankole had argued that telecommunications companies, as legal entities, could be represented by persons appointed by the companies.
“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,” he said.
Another lawyer, Ilemona Onoja, had raised constitutional concerns over the scope of the investigation, arguing that private telecommunications operators do not automatically fall within the categories of entities the legislature can investigate under Section 88.
Onoja had also drawn attention to judicial authorities, including Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh and SPDC v. Speaker, in discussing the constitutional limits of legislative investigative powers.
He further questioned the propriety of the House proceeding with aspects of the investigation amid pending litigation involving ALTON, raising concerns about the implications of the principle of sub judice.
Rather than concentrating exclusively on summoning telecommunications executives, Onoja had urged lawmakers to address industry challenges within their legislative responsibilities, including fibre-optic cable vandalism, multiple taxation and inconsistent right-of-way charges.
The dispute raises broader questions about the relationship between legislative oversight and the regulatory responsibilities of specialised agencies, particularly where private companies operate within an established statutory framework.
While the National Assembly has constitutional powers to investigate matters within its legislative competence, the operators are asking the court to clarify whether the particular investigation into telecommunications service quality falls within the purposes permitted by the Constitution.
The originating summons also invites the court to consider whether the House’s investigation could interfere with related cases pending before other courts.
The development comes amid public concerns over the quality of telecommunications services, including dropped calls, inconsistent internet connectivity and other service disruptions affecting subscribers and businesses.
