One of the least discussed yet most consequential drivers of digital inclusion in Nigeria is the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF), a public fund established to ensure that people in rural, remote, and underserved areas are not left behind in access to communication services. For more than a decade, the USPF has overseen programmes intended to expand network coverage, provide community ICT centres, support rural base stations, and strengthen last-mile broadband access. Yet, for many Nigerians, the central question remains unanswered: What has been the measurable outcome of these investments?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOI) provides an important tool for answering that question. Since the Act became fully operational in 2015, journalists, researchers, and civic groups have increasingly used FOI requests to examine how the USPF allocates funds, selects project sites, awards contracts, and evaluates the impact of rural connectivity projects. However, the transparency journey in this space is still uneven.
The USPF operates under the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), meaning it is legally required to disclose information on request within seven working days, unless limited by exemption. In practice, some requests have been granted with clarity, others have been delayed, and some have been redirected into bureaucratic loops. The result is that the true story of rural connectivity in Nigeria is often told in fragments rather than in full. Nevertheless, the FOI Act has helped uncover critical insights. It has shown how certain communities received subsidised masts and ICT centres that later became nonfunctional due to power supply issues or maintenance gaps.
It has highlighted areas where rural base stations were built but never fully integrated into commercial networks. It has revealed how contractor performance determines whether a community gains meaningful connection or merely receives infrastructure that sits idle.
At the same time, FOI-driven scrutiny has helped shape more disciplined project monitoring. Evidence from request-based evaluations has pushed the USPF and its implementing partners to adopt clearer reporting standards, track connectivity outcomes in more structured ways, and periodically publish operational updates. Where transparency has been embraced, accountability has followed; where transparency has been resisted, communities continue to struggle in digital darkness.
The stakes are high. Rural access to reliable broadband affects school performance, agricultural pricing, access to e-health services, digital financial inclusion, and participation in democratic processes. A village without connectivity is not simply “offline” but it is structurally disadvantaged in the modern economy.
The FOI Act remains the public’s key instrument for following the rural connectivity money: who was awarded what, where projects were located, whether the infrastructure works, and how communities have benefited. When used effectively, FOI requests shift the conversation from official announcements to verifiable outcomes, from claims to evidence.
This is where Telecoms Clinic places its emphasis. The future of Nigeria’s digital reach depends not only on capital investment and policy ambition, but also on sustained transparency and measurable impact. If Nigeria is serious about bridging the digital divide, then the USPF must not only disburse funds; it must also be open, accountable, and responsive to public scrutiny.
The purpose of FOI is not confrontation. It is clarity. It is a way of ensuring that national development commitments translate into real-world progress, especially for communities that have historically been left behind.
Rural connectivity is not charity. It is national infrastructure. And every Nigerian has the right to know how it is being built.
Next Week:
Inside the Spectrum Economy: Public Asset or Private Monopoly? Understanding Spectrum.
Short URLs:
goo.gl,
mcaf.ee,
cli.gs
At the same time, FOI-driven scrutiny has helped shape more disciplined project monitoring. Evidence from request-based evaluations has pushed the USPF and its implementing partners to adopt clearer reporting standards, track connectivity outcomes in more structured ways, and periodically publish operational updates. Where transparency has been embraced, accountability has followed; where transparency has been resisted, communities continue to struggle in digital darkness.
The stakes are high. Rural access to reliable broadband affects school performance, agricultural pricing, access to e-health services, digital financial inclusion, and participation in democratic processes. A village without connectivity is not simply “offline” but it is structurally disadvantaged in the modern economy.
The FOI Act remains the public’s key instrument for following the rural connectivity money: who was awarded what, where projects were located, whether the infrastructure works, and how communities have benefited. When used effectively, FOI requests shift the conversation from official announcements to verifiable outcomes, from claims to evidence.
This is where Telecoms Clinic places its emphasis. The future of Nigeria’s digital reach depends not only on capital investment and policy ambition, but also on sustained transparency and measurable impact. If Nigeria is serious about bridging the digital divide, then the USPF must not only disburse funds; it must also be open, accountable, and responsive to public scrutiny.
The purpose of FOI is not confrontation. It is clarity. It is a way of ensuring that national development commitments translate into real-world progress, especially for communities that have historically been left behind.
Rural connectivity is not charity. It is national infrastructure. And every Nigerian has the right to know how it is being built.
Next Week:
Inside the Spectrum Economy: Public Asset or Private Monopoly? Understanding Spectrum.


No comments:
Post a Comment