By Semilore Akinsulure
It is no longer contentious that the world has been reduced to a global village. We live in world that is digitally connected, every engagement can easily be traced through the microscopic lens of technology. Telecommunications is one of those groundbreaking innovations that has contributed to the transformation of the global populace, through unwavering digital connectivity. With the advent of this initiative, which was introduced into Nigeria as far back as 2003 during the administration of Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, people now have a means of breaking the barriers poised by distance, and it has also rescued the people from the primitive means of communication through postal system that was largely employed before the emergence of telecommunications.
However, the laudable innovation seems to have come with its attendant shortcomings. Lately, renowned human rights activist, Comrade Omoyele Sowore commenced a strong agitation against the unfair charges imposed by MTN on consumers. The issue of poor quality network and service failure equally stand tall in this instance. Telecom providers sometimes deprive consumers unfettered access to free flow network that meet up with the required standard. The question that then comes to mind, is that can consumers be entitled to seek for remedy when they are faced with poor network quality from telecom providers? In this piece, efforts will be made to dissect the legal implications that can possibly arise from any inadequacy emanating from telecom providers, especially when they compromised in terms of protecting the private information of consumers, and when they impose unbearable charges on consumers.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT GUIDES TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
The main legal framework that regulates the affairs of telecommunications include the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as amended) National Communications Act (2003), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, The National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Act (2007) However, for the purpose of this piece, we shall be relying more on the National Communications Act, and efforts will also be made to make reference to other laws as much as possible, pursuant to their relevance to the thrust of discussion.
The Nigerian Communication Act (2003) was signed into law, after having been passed by both Houses of the National Assembly, by President Olusegun Obasanjo on July 8, 2003. The NCA 2003 applies to the provision and use of all communications services and networks, in whole or in part within Nigeria or on ships or aircraft registered in Nigeria. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Nigerian Communications Commission and saddled the Commission with the sole responsibility of regulating the communication sector in Nigeria, thereby vesting the Commission with regulatory powers. While Section 4 of the Act empowers the Commission to carry out some designated functions which include the protection and promotion of the interests of consumers against unfair practices including but not limited to matters relating to tariffs and charges for and the availability and quality of communications services, equipment and facilities.
THE RIGHT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS’ CONSUMERS IN NIGERIA
The question of whether subscribers of telecom companies are entitled to some rights have been long settled. It’s trite that once a Sim pack is purchased, you automatically enter a contractual relationship with the licensee who doubles as the telecom company, with terms and conditions clearly stipulated on the surface of the Simpack. This has therefore empowered subscribers to ventilate their displeasure when the services they are getting in return is not measuring up to the expected standard. Some of these rights include: right to quality service, reasonable billing, right to privacy amongst others.
1. RIGHT TO QUALITY SERVICE
The Nigerian Communications Act 2003 ensures that telecom operators maintain high quality communication services while protecting consumers from unfair activities. Section 104 of the Act expressly mandate service providers to be committed to minimum standard of quality of service as the commission may from time to time specify and publish. They are also expected to deal with consumers in a way that is reasonable, and adequately address consumer complaints whenever there’s any. The spirit of that section undoubtedly tilt towards ensuring that consumers receive unwavering and unfettered satisfactory communication services and that their concerns are properly handled by service providers. Interesting, the Court has also intervened in the past to give meaningful enforcement to the right of consumers against service providers. Notably, in the case of MTN Nig Ltd v. Chinedu (2018) LPELR-44621 (CA), The court held via Per Rita Nosakhare Pemu, JCA(Pp11-12paras C-E) “a duty of care can be imposed by law or can be created by contract or trust. I. M. N. L v NWACHAKWU (2004) LPELR 1526 - “First, one has to ask as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage, if there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighborhood such that in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness in his part may likely cause damage to the latter in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. It is no gainsaying that a consumer is a person whom the manufacturer ought to have in contemplation as closely and directly affected by its acts or omissions. The MTN is one who ought to have its consumers in contemplation as they are closely and directly affected by its acts and omissions. In the present scenario, the Respondents, having subscribed to a line from the appellant, and paid, was bound to be protected by the Appellant.” This progressive stance goes to show that the consumer has to be entitled to quality service and must enjoy the dividends of what they have subscribed to. To act in a way that contradict this settled position is to act outside the spirit of our laws.
2. RIGHT TO FAIR AND REASONABLE BILLING.
Consumers of service providers are entitled to a fair and reasonable billing. The days are long gone when costumers will have their money speedily and unreasonably deducted without any just cause. The position of the law is quite trite that charges from network providers must be reasonable and not tyrannical. Section 108 of the Nigerian Communication Act governs tariffs and charges by service providers. This section mandates service providers to seek approval from the Commission before imposing charges or tariffs. The community reading of Sub-section 4 (a) and (b) of the same Section show clearly that service providers are prohibited from imposing charges that are not fair and cost oriented. The Court in the case of Anene v. MTN Nigeria Communications PLC (2025) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2010) affirmed the position that service providers can not deduct charges in a way that is inimical to good reasoning. The court also solidified the place of Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 to rightfully enforce consumer’s right within the purview of telecommunications industry in Nigeria. With this, the right of consumers have been positively reinforced, which has shielded them from unwarranted vulnerability due to heavy charges deductions from service providers.
3. RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND SAFEGUARDING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
There’s a duty imposed on service providers to ensure that personal information of consumers are protected from the full glares of the public. The right to privacy is fundamental and should not be jeopardized under any circumstances. What this mean is that, no service providers can leak a call recording of consumers, as this would offend the spirit and intent of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Court in OMOTAYO v. AIRTEL NETWORKS LTD (2025) LPELR- 80012(CA) profoundly held to the effect that constitutional right to privacy under section 37 of the 1999 constitution is fundamental and cannot be waived by contractual terms of service. The court went further to state that call records fall within the protected sphere of private correspondence and damages will be awarded for their unauthorised disclosure. This decision serves as a necessary reminder that telecom companies must comply with the right to privacy of consumers as encapsulated by the grundnorm.
CONCLUSION
It’s a matter of common knowledge that telecommunication has played a formidable role in connecting the people together. The industry has also been pivotal in boosting the economic system of the country, but we must not jettison the fact that the rights of consumers of telecom companies are equally very sacrosanct, and can’t be waived without going through due process. These rights have been reinforced and fortified through various enactments which has also been given a judicial force in plethora of decisions, as encapsulated in the heart of this discourse. In the light of the above, it’s therefore imperative for Service providers to start prioritizing the rights of consumers without any discrimination.
Semiloore Akinsulure is a Writer and a Media Personality
semiloreakinsulure@gmail.com
0 Comments