Editorial: Telecom operators must answer for poor services

The House of Representatives’ decision to summon the chief executives of MTN Nigeria, Airtel Nigeria, Globacom, Mafab Communications and other telecom operators over persistent poor network services, cannot be wrong.

But the real test of this intervention will not be the public hearing itself, but whether it produces measurable improvements in the quality of services Nigerians receive.

For millions of Nigerians, poor telecommunications services have become an unwelcome part of daily life. Dropped calls, slow internet connections, failed airtime and data transactions, and persistent difficulty connecting to networks are recurring frustrations. These are not merely inconveniences. They have economic consequences for individuals, businesses and the country at large.

Nigeria’s dependence on telecommunications has grown considerably. From banking and electronic payments to online education, remote work, commerce and communication, reliable connectivity is essential to modern life. When networks fail, businesses lose money, customers are stranded, transactions are disrupted and productivity suffers. The consequences are particularly serious in a country where millions of people depend on their mobile phones to earn a living.

It is therefore appropriate that the House, through its ad hoc committee, is demanding explanations from the operators. The figures reported by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) indicate that the problem deserves serious attention. The commission, says the four major operators received 413,587 consumer complaints in the first half of 2026. Airtel accounted for 228,992 complaints, MTN for 124,405, Globacom for 56,810 and T2mobile for 3,885.

Although the operators reportedly resolved 406,938 complaints, the persistence of subscribers’ grievances suggests that resolving individual complaints has not necessarily translated into a satisfactory overall customer experience. A complaint may be closed administratively while the underlying network problem remains unresolved or recurs.

The NCC also reports that 75 million subscribers have received compensation for poor services in 2026, while nearly three million others received refunds for failed airtime and data transactions. The commission says it had undertaken more than 6,500 network improvement activities during the year.

While these interventions are significant, they raise an important question: why do so many subscribers continue to experience poor services despite the reported compensation, refunds and network improvement efforts?

The answer must be sought through a thorough examination of the operators’ infrastructure, network capacity, investment decisions, maintenance practices and compliance with service quality standards. Compensation may provide some relief to affected customers, but it cannot substitute for reliable service. Nigerians need networks that work, not merely refunds after they fail.

The disruption reported by MTN subscribers on October 8, which reportedly affected parts of Lagos, Oyo, Rivers, Delta and the Federal Capital Territory for more than five hours, illustrates the extent to which network failures can disrupt daily activities. When subscribers cannot make calls or complete transactions, the effects can extend far beyond the inconvenience of being temporarily unreachable.

The operators’ chief executives must appear before the House. The reported practice of sending junior officials or failing to honour invitations undermines the purpose of legislative oversight. While company representatives may be competent to address technical questions, chief executives should be prepared to account for their organisations’ performance, investment priorities and plans to address persistent service deficiencies.

The reported failure of some operators, including MTN and Mafab Communications, to honour previous invitations is particularly concerning. Companies operating in a sector as important to the national economy as telecommunications must recognise that their obligations extend beyond generating revenue. They also include providing services that meet regulatory requirements and treating subscribers fairly.

However, the committee must ensure that its intervention goes beyond expressing displeasure or threatening sanctions. Public hearings are useful only when they establish facts, identify responsibility and lead to practical remedies. The operators should be required to explain the causes of recurring service failures, disclose the steps they are taking to address them and provide realistic timelines for improvement.

The NCC, for its part, must demonstrate that it is capable of enforcing its own regulations. The commission introduced an automatic airtime compensation policy in April 2026 for eligible subscribers affected when operators fail to meet prescribed service standards. Such a policy is a step towards protecting consumers, but its effectiveness depends on transparent implementation, adequate monitoring and meaningful consequences for persistent non-compliance.

The commission should also publish clear, accessible information about service quality across networks and locations. Subscribers deserve to know how operators perform against established standards, how complaints are handled and what remedies are available when services fall below acceptable levels. Reliable data would help consumers make informed choices and enable regulators to identify operators or locations requiring urgent intervention.

At the same time, accountability must be accompanied by a realistic assessment of the challenges facing the industry. Telecommunications operators may face high infrastructure costs, electricity expenses, equipment importation costs, security threats to installations and difficulties securing sites and rights of way. These factors should be examined where relevant, rather than dismissed outright.

However, acknowledging operational challenges must not become an excuse for indefinite poor service. Operators that collect revenue from subscribers have a responsibility to explain how they are addressing these difficulties and what improvements customers can reasonably expect. Where government policies, infrastructure deficits or other external constraints contribute to network problems, the responsible authorities should also be held accountable for addressing them.

The October 28, 2026, hearing should therefore provide an opportunity for a frank and evidence-based examination of the sector. The committee should demand verifiable information, not general assurances. It should establish whether operators are meeting their obligations, whether existing regulations are adequate and whether enforcement measures are strong enough to discourage repeated failures.

Any sanctions imposed must be lawful, proportionate and directed at correcting the problems identified. The ultimate objective should not be to embarrass telecom companies or disrupt services further, but to protect subscribers and improve the reliability of an industry on which the country increasingly depends.

The committee must also ensure that the outcome of the hearing does not disappear into the familiar cycle of public outrage, official promises and eventual silence. Nigerians should be informed of the findings, the commitments made by the operators and the steps the NCC will take to monitor compliance. Where deadlines for improvement are set, progress should be assessed against measurable targets.

Telecom operators must realise that subscribers are not asking for a favour. They are paying for services and are entitled to expect reasonable quality and reliability. Similarly, regulators must recognise that the number of complaints resolved or the volume of compensation paid cannot, by themselves, establish that consumers are receiving satisfactory service.

The House of Representatives has an opportunity to turn public frustration into meaningful reform. It should seize that opportunity by insisting on accountability, transparency and practical solutions. The operators must answer the questions put to them, while the NCC must demonstrate that its regulations have consequences.

Ultimately, the success of the October 28 hearing should be measured not by the attendance of chief executives or the severity of lawmakers’ warnings, but by whether Nigerians experience fewer dropped calls, faster and more dependable internet connections, fewer failed transactions and a marked improvement in network reliability.

Nigerians have heard enough explanations for poor telecommunications services. They deserve tangible improvements.