Nigeria’s telecommunications industry has invested more than N4 trillion in network infrastructure, yet subscribers continue to contend with dropped calls, slow internet speeds and unreliable connectivity. For Gbenga Adebayo, chairman of the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), the problem extends beyond the capacity or willingness of operators to invest. Unreliable electricity, persistent fibre-optic cable cuts, insecurity, regulatory bottlenecks and rising operating costs are undermining the industry’s ability to deliver better services.
In this interview with BusinessDay’s ROYAL IBEH, Adebayo, who is also group chief executive officer of Communication Network Support Services Limited (CNSSL), discusses the structural challenges affecting telecommunications service delivery, the sustainability of operators’ investments, the Nigerian Communications Commission’s consumer compensation framework and the ongoing disagreement between telecom operators and lawmakers over legislative oversight. He also explains why stronger infrastructure protection, harmonised Right-of-Way charges and an enabling regulatory environment are critical to improving network quality and sustaining investment in Nigeria’s telecommunications sector.
Quality of service remains the biggest consumer complaint in Nigeria’s telecoms sector. What are the root causes, and how much is within operators’ control?
We fully appreciate the frustration of subscribers when they experience dropped calls, slow internet speeds or interruptions in service and do not seek to diminish those expectations. However, telecommunications service delivery is an ecosystem. The quality and availability of service depend on several interconnected factors, many of which are outside the direct control of operators.
From the industry’s assessment, there are four significant challenges.
First, inadequate electricity supply. Every base station and transmission facility requires continuous power, and the national grid remains unreliable, forcing operators to depend on diesel generators. Power-related challenges account for approximately 40 percent of QoS incidents.
Second, persistent fibre-optic cable disruptions from road construction, excavation, vandalism and theft account for approximately 29 percent of QoS degradation.
Third, security challenges that affect operators’ ability to access sites, maintain infrastructure and respond to faults account for approximately seven per cent of incidents.
Fourth, regulatory and infrastructure deployment challenges, including inconsistent right-of-way charges across states and delays in obtaining permits.
Improving QoS requires a shared responsibility framework involving operators, governments, regulators, security agencies, electricity providers and road authorities.
Operators have collectively invested more than N4 trillion in network infrastructure. Why, despite this spending, do subscribers still experience service failures?
Telecommunications investment is a continuous capital-intensive process. Networks must expand alongside population growth, subscriber numbers, and the exponential growth in data consumption. The industry is not investing to maintain yesterday’s network; it is investing to accommodate tomorrow’s demand.
To put the N4 trillion figure in context: operators deployed approximately N2.13 trillion in capital expenditure in 2025 alone and have committed a further N1.86 trillion for 2026. These are not hypothetical figures; they represent actual and committed infrastructure spending.
But investment does not automatically translate into uninterrupted service where supporting infrastructure is unreliable. An operator may upgrade a base station and increase its bandwidth, but a power outage or fibre cut along the transmission route can still disrupt service.
There is also the issue of operating costs. Between February and September 2026, the average cost of diesel increased from approximately N978 to N2,050 per litre, an increase of about 110 percent. Interest rates averaged approximately 28 percent in 2025.
The industry is not asking for sympathy or exemption from accountability. We are asking for an environment in which investment can deliver its intended benefits.
The NCC introduced its Consumer Compensation Framework in March 2026, and by October, over 75 million subscribers had been compensated. How do you assess this framework?
We commend the NCC for taking steps to ensure that subscribers receive redress when they experience poor service. The reported compensation of over 75 million subscribers demonstrates that the framework has achieved considerable reach and that operators are implementing the directive.
Importantly, the NCC has also begun independently verifying operators’ compensation claims, which ensures that eligible subscribers have actually received the redress they are owed. That independent verification strengthens the credibility of the entire framework.
However, it is important to distinguish between the delivery of compensation and the actual improvement of the quality of service. Compensation is a remedial measure. It does not, in itself, resolve the underlying infrastructure challenges responsible for service degradation. Our preference, as an industry, is always to prevent poor service rather than compensate for it after the event.
The best compensation a subscriber can receive is a reliable network that makes compensation unnecessary.
In October, the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee summoned telco CEOs to appear in person, threatening arrest for non-compliance. You appeared before the committee on behalf of your members, but lawmakers said you could not, as ALTON chairman, represent the individual operators. What happened?
ALTON and its members have nothing to hide, and we have never opposed legitimate engagement with the National Assembly.
I appeared in my capacity as Chairman of the Association to ensure that the Committee understood the industry’s concerns and the constitutional issues arising from the nature of the summons.
The difficulty was that the Committee appeared to regard the operators as subjects of investigation rather than private entities being invited to provide information or assist with a legitimate legislative inquiry. We respectfully disagreed with that approach.
Our position was that ALTON could provide the industry’s collective perspective and coordinate engagement with its members. However, whether individual company executives could be compelled to appear, particularly where the investigation concerned matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the NCC, raised serious constitutional questions.
We formally communicated our position in our letter of 20 October 2026. Our intervention was not an attempt to frustrate the committee. It was an effort to ensure that engagement takes place within the framework of the Constitution and the law.
In 2018, ALTON filed a suit seeking judicial interpretation of the Assembly’s oversight powers over telecoms operators. That case is still pending. Do you believe the current summons is constitutionally appropriate?
The exercise of legislative investigative powers must be firmly anchored in the Constitution. We recognise the authority of the National Assembly, but that authority is not unlimited.
Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution provides for investigative powers for specific purposes, including assisting the legislature to make laws and investigating the conduct of persons responsible for administering laws or funds appropriated by the legislature.
The question is whether those powers extend to compelling privately owned telecommunications companies to account for their commercial activities where those matters fall within the statutory jurisdiction of the NCC.
In DHL International Nigeria Limited v. Senate, the courts considered the limits of the Assembly’s investigative powers over private companies. In Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Speaker, House of Representatives (2023), the Court of Appeal emphasised that investigative powers must be connected to constitutional purposes. We also drew attention to the pending NECA appeal before the Supreme Court on Sections 88 and 89.
These are not questions that should be settled through threats of arrest. We must allow the courts to determine the outstanding legal issues.
Is there any benefit to these hearings, or are they political theatre?
I would not dismiss legislative hearings outright. They can be useful instruments of accountability and policy development. Nigerians are entitled to demand better services, and lawmakers have a responsibility to represent those concerns.
However, QoS is a complex infrastructure issue. It cannot be resolved by summoning CEOs or threatening sanctions. The NCC already has the statutory responsibility to regulate the industry, monitor quality and enforce performance standards. The National Assembly should complement, not duplicate, that work.
A hearing that results in stronger legislation against fibre vandalism, faster Right-of-Way approvals and improved electricity supply would have lasting value. We should measure the success of these hearings by the improvements Nigerians experience, not by the number of executives summoned or the drama surrounding their appearance.
What specific laws should the National Assembly be passing?
There are several areas where the legislature can make a tangible difference. First, protection of telecommunications infrastructure as critical national assets, with stronger legislation against vandalism, fibre cuts and equipment theft.
Second, harmonisation of Right-of-Way charges, replacing the current situation where operators encounter different charges and procedures across states.
Third, legislation that supports infrastructure sharing, streamlines permitting and removes bureaucratic obstacles to network expansion.
Fourth, addressing the cost and availability of electricity and the security of network facilities.
The NCC should regulate the industry. The National Assembly should legislate to remove the structural obstacles that make investment difficult and expensive. Both institutions have important but distinct responsibilities.
What is your message to Nigerians, regulators and the legislature?
My message is simple: we all want better service, but better service requires investment, and investment requires an enabling environment.
The industry has demonstrated its commitment through substantial investments, but sustaining them requires policies that encourage capital formation rather than discourage it. Sanctions alone cannot build fibre networks, provide electricity to base stations, prevent vandalism or facilitate access to infrastructure.
We need responsible operators, effective regulation, supportive legislation and cooperation across all levels of government. If we get that balance right, the ultimate beneficiaries will be Nigerian consumers, businesses and the wider economy.
Royal Ibeh is a senior journalist with years of experience reporting on Nigeria’s technology and health sectors. She currently covers the Technology and Health beats for BusinessDay newspaper, where she writes in-depth stories on digital innovation, telecom infrastructure, healthcare systems, and public health policies.
