The Analog foundation: One network, three regulators by Remmy Nweke - Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

The proposed Digital Economy Bill is under heavy fire from industry experts who warn it risks regulatory collapse. In his Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS, REMMY NWEKE posited that the draft law's failure to merge Nigeria's three regulators (NCC, NBC, NITDA) guarantees destructive inter-agency "turf wars" instead of economic growth. Nweke argues this approach is akin to building a "$1 Trillion House on an analog foundation."

Preamble:
The Nigerian government has an undeniably ambitious goal: to construct a $1 trillion digital economy, positioning it as the indispensable pillar of the nation’s future prosperity and diversification. This ambition is indeed laudable and necessary in the global digital age.

However, recent legislative maneuvers, particularly the highly controversial National Digital Economy and E-Governance Bill, 2025 and its direct predecessor, the NITDA amendment bill, 2022; threaten not only to undermine this grand vision but to actively sabotage the entire enterprise before it can even gain momentum. The impending chaos is not a matter of poor execution, but of poor foundational design.

The core problem, as trenchantly identified by leading technology policy expert Basil Udotai and vigorously articulated by the voice of the industry, the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), is fundamentally one of architecture: Nigeria is attempting to erect this magnificent, future-proof structure on a regulatory foundation that is fragmented, obsolete, and designed exclusively for the analog era of the 20th century.

Udotai's stark analogy perfectly encapsulates this peril: “A $1 Trillion House built on an analog foundation can’t stand.” The regulatory framework is fractured along outdated technological lines, creating a legal sieve rather than a sturdy base.

The central tragedy, he said, lies in the enduring regulatory fragmentation among the three main pillars of Nigeria's digital space - the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), and the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA). 

In the 21st century, when every service, whether it is voice, streaming video, or financial data, all traverse the same fiber optic and spectrum pathways, Nigeria stubbornly maintains separate, and now conflicting, rulebooks for these components.

This entrenched incoherence is precisely what the proposed Digital Economy Bill fails to resolve. Instead, it seems politically engineered to elevate one siloed regulator at the expense of others, virtually guaranteeing a cascade of damaging inter-agency "turf wars" that will ultimately stall digital progress, repel crucial foreign investment, and force operators into a state of perpetual legal uncertainty.

Great technological convergence and three silos:
The current regulatory architecture is nothing more than a historical relic, a vestige of a time when the "three C's" Computing, Communications, and Content, existed as distinct, non-overlapping sectors. 

The NCC (Nigerian Communications Act 2003) was founded on the singular objective of licensing and regulating telephony, managing infrastructure, and auctioning spectrum, establishing it as the undisputed network cum infrastructure regulator.

Meanwhile, the NBC (NBC Act 1992) was solely focused on the regulation of terrestrial and satellite broadcast content, functioning as the content regulator, which now finds itself struggling to assert relevance over streaming video platforms and social media content delivered entirely over NCC-regulated networks.

Finally, NITDA (NITDA Act 2007) was originally tasked with the development of government IT strategy and capacity building, but now attempts to position itself as the proposed digital policy cum super-regulator; seeking to unilaterally set standards across all digital services, including those running across the networks governed by the NCC and the content governed by the NBC.

The rise of the Internet Protocol (IP) has systematically and ruthlessly erased the lines between these analog domains. A single 4G or 5G mobile subscription, licensed and technically regulated by the NCC, allows a consumer to receive a traditional phone call (NCC), stream a movie from a foreign platform (NBC content issues), and complete a banking transaction via the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Data Protection Commission (NDPC) and NITDA disjointed standards; seamlessly. 

Because the Digital Economy Bill systematically avoided the necessary structural convergence, the merger or radical realignment of these bodies witnessed in global best practices like the United Kindgom via the UK’s Ofcom or Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA); it merely layers a new, complex set of rules on top of an already conflicted, unstable framework.

ALSO READ:

Can Lawan, Gbajabiamila kill cockroaches - ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic: Digital knocks for NITDA’s Code of practice - ITREALMS

The result, as ALTON warned with increasing stridency, is unnecessary regulatory duplication, compounded compliance costs, and heightened regulatory friction, making the operational environment unbearable for network providers.

Cockroach in cupboard of regulatory overreach:
One of the famous analysis published by Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS of the precursor, the NITDA Bill 2022, vividly dubbed the legislative push an "infestation by cockroaches," using the metaphor to represent an unwanted affliction with insidious, unhygienic, and pervasive consequences for the nation's Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) sector. 

This "cockroach in the cupboard" embodies the deep-seated political maneuvering to seize regulatory power through the backdoor. The specific, toxic elements of the Bill guarantee conflicts with all other sector regulators:

Firstly, the Bill’s core objective lays the groundwork for transforming NITDA from an IT Development Agency, its original and primary mandate, into an overarching regulatory outfit. Section 1 (Objectives) explicitly states the Act aims to create an "effective, impartial, and independent regulatory framework." 

This clause represents a clean break from the 2007 Act and establishes the agency as a direct, structural competitor to the NCC, whose singular, decades-long function is sector regulation.

Secondly, the Bill employs broad, generic concepts that intentionally wrap around the NCC's statutory duties under the Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) 2003. 

The terms ‘Digital Economy’ and ‘Digital Services’ , often inadequately defined in the Bill, are used repeatedly in clauses such as Section 1(b) (promoting access to digital services) and Section 1(e) (promoting the use of innovative digital services). 

Since nearly all modern digital services; voice, SMS, data, Value Added Services (VAS), are delivered digitally via networks licensed and regulated by the NCC, these provisions create a clear, injurious overlap with the NCC’s exclusive mandate to regulate communications services and manage access.

Furthermore, the Bill directly attempts to usurp the NCC's functions concerning investment promotion and consumer protection. Section 1(c) seeks to encourage local and foreign investments through regulatory interventions, directly mirroring and attempting to override Section 4(1)(a) of the NCA 2003.

Similarly, Section 1(g) seeks to protect consumers, duplicating the NCC's mandate under Section 4(1)(b) of the NCA 2003 . By staking a claim in these areas, the Bill guarantees severe jurisdictional rivalry in areas like Consumer Affairs and Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement, forcing Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) into a paralyzing state of receiving two conflicting directives on the same operational matter.

Thirdly, the threat of regulatory warfare is sealed by the supremacy trap within the legislation. The Bill, through clauses like Section 62, claims that its provisions shall prevail over conflicting parts of any other existing law related to the digital economy.

This provision is the ultimate display of legislative arrogance; it does not harmonize, but attempts to install a hierarchical dictator where a coordinated partnership is required. Udotai stressed that this turf war will challenge the foundational statutes of the NCC, CBN, and NDPC, ultimately making the Bill’s enforcement difficult, if not impossible, as it faces unending legal challenges and administrative resistance.

Stifled economy: Costs of incoherence:
The practical effects of this analog foundation, therefore, are immediate and economically disastrous. For the MNOs and ISPs who have invested over $70 billion in Nigeria’s infrastructure, the Bill introduces the threat of crippling double compliance and duplicate taxation. 

Operators face being forced to seek separate approvals, certifications, and compliance monitoring from NITDA for the very same digital services and infrastructure components already regulated by the NCC. 

This duplication, industry observers said, translates directly into higher operational expenses, bureaucratic delays, and diverted resources that should be focused on extending access to underserved communities. 

ALTON’s position is unequivocal: investors require regulatory certainty. Ambiguity, uncertainty, and the risk of political interference, particularly through clauses like the ministerial directive powers, will cause capital, both domestic and foreign, to flee to cleaner, more stable jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the Bill harbors serious legal and constitutional perils. Udotai highlighted that the legislation attempts to introduce unconstitutional penal provisions, criminalizing non-compliance with future administrative directives without explicitly defining the offences within the Act itself. 

This undermines the constitutional principle of legality and creates a dangerous avenue for arbitrary enforcement and discretionary abuse of power against businesses. Coupled with the Bill's unnecessary duplication of settled Nigerian law in areas like electronic evidence and digital identity, the entire framework is designed for legal collision, diverting the energy and resources of regulators and operators away from development and into expensive, protracted legal battles over jurisdictional supremacy.

Conclusion: Path to digital coherence:
The goal of creating a $1 trillion digital economy for Nigeria is indisputably worthy. However, the warnings issued by a renowned technology lawyer, Basil Udotai and ALTON make it clear that legislative speed cannot compensate for institutional incoherence.

The analysis published by Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS had argued that the essential solution is not a minor amendment but a commitment to an institutional overhaul. 

The NCC, NBC, and NITDA were created to serve separate functions in an analog world; the digital world demands a unified operational philosophy. Until the analog foundation is fixed, and a clear, cooperative framework, as proposed by ALTON, is adopted, the Bill will remain a poisoned legislative chalice.

Nigeria risks having its enormous digital potential collapse under the weight of its own regulatory contradictions, leaving the $1 trillion house forever under construction. 

The gavel of the National Assembly must be used now to kill the cockroach, trashing this infested bill before it inflicts undue afflictions on the ubiquitous digital infrastructure of the 21st century.