Right of Way (RoW) & Fiber Deployment Transparency: Who Sets Prices and Why? Asks Remmy Nweke - Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS

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

In this edition of Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS with REMMY NWEKE, he probes Nigeria’s spectrum licensing and renewal transparency (2015–2025), asking who got what, at what price, and why openness still matters.

For years, the Right of Way (RoW) debate has lingered as one of Nigeria’s most persistent bottlenecks to affordable broadband and nationwide fiber deployment. Although the conversation often circles around “high charges” and “state levies,” beneath this fiscal friction lies a deeper transparency deficit; a question of who actually determines RoW pricing, how those decisions are made, and what accountability framework exists for public resources that should empower, not encumber, connectivity.

When the National Economic Council (NEC) agreed in 2013 to peg RoW charges at ₦145 per linear meter across Nigeria, the consensus was hailed as a historic step toward harmonizing infrastructure costs and accelerating broadband penetration. Yet, more than a decade later, the disparity between federal ambition and state practice has only widened. 

Some states adopted the standard; others ignored it, charging as high as ₦6,000 per meter or insisting on opaque “negotiated” settlements. In effect, every meter of fiber optic cable became a political and fiscal negotiation, often determined by administrative convenience rather than policy consistency.

At the heart of this inconsistency is the fragmented governance structure of Nigeria’s telecommunications sector. The Nigerian Communications Act 2003 clearly empowers the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to promote access to network facilities and ensure fair competition. But land and by extension, RoW, falls under state jurisdiction. 

This dual sovereignty, untempered by a shared data-driven framework, has allowed pricing discretion to become both a revenue tool and a bargaining chip. Thus, operators’ fiber routes often follow political maps, not technical ones.

The transparency question is equally crucial. Most state governments classify RoW revenues as “internally generated revenue” (IGR) without disclosing their computation or allocation in public budgets. Citizens, therefore, have no idea how much is collected, what proportion supports infrastructure maintenance, or whether it goes into general coffers. Yet the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 gives Nigerians the right to request such details. 

In theory, a citizen can file an FOI request asking, for instance, how much a state has earned from telecom RoW charges since 2013, how the rates were determined, and what digital inclusion projects those revenues have funded. In practice, however, the opacity persists; a silence sustained by both bureaucratic inertia and limited civic demand for disclosure.

But fiber transparency is not merely about fairness to telecom operators. It is about broadband as a human and economic right. Every inflated RoW charge delays connectivity for rural communities, widens the digital divide, and indirectly inflates data prices for millions of Nigerians. 

The recent push by the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy to achieve 70 per cent broadband penetration by end of 2025 can only succeed if the RoW regime becomes predictable and transparent.

Some states are beginning to show the way. Ekiti, Kaduna, Lagos, and Anambra have all experimented with single-digit or even zero-rated RoW fees, often justified as long-term investments in digital infrastructure rather than short-term revenue. Their fiber footprints have since expanded exponentially, attracting both private carriers and small-scale Internet Service Providers (ISPs). 

In Anambra, for instance, the government’s collaboration with private fiber operators under its Smart Megacity initiative reinforces the case for policy-driven connectivity. These case studies illustrate a simple truth: when governments treat fiber as public infrastructure, not private profit, the benefits multiply.

However, the absence of a national transparency index for fiber deployment remains a missed opportunity. Citizens, journalists, and digital rights advocates cannot easily access standardized data showing fiber coverage per state, RoW fees collected, or average time to approval. 

Without such visibility, the sector remains vulnerable to arbitrary decision-making and rent-seeking practices. The FOI Act provides a constitutional instrument to challenge this culture of opacity, but only if citizens and civil society use it actively.

In practical terms, Nigerians can deploy FOI requests to compel disclosure from: State ministries of works or lands (for RoW pricing and revenues); The NCC (for licensees’ reported infrastructure investments); The National Broadband Office (for performance metrics on deployment targets).

These disclosures, once obtained, could inform public debates, guide advocacy, and perhaps encourage competitive benchmarking among states. Imagine a public dashboard ranking all 36 states by transparency in RoW policy and broadband expansion, a mirror forcing governments to match rhetoric with measurable progress.

In the end, the question “Who sets prices and why?” is not simply administrative; it is philosophical. It asks whether Nigeria wants a broadband ecosystem built on equity and foresight, or one stifled by short-term fiscal opportunism. Each meter of buried fiber represents not just a business cost but a conduit for education, commerce, and civic participation.

The FOI Act, alongside the National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (NDEPS), provides the tools to align RoW governance with the country’s digital future. What remains is the will, from both governments to open their books, and citizens to demand that they do.

Next Week in FOI & Digital Governance Series: Spectrum Licensing and Renewal Transparency (2015–2025): Who Got What, At What Price?