Connect with us

Telecom

Barred Phone Lines:  Lagos Lawyer Demands N10Bn Damages from Telcos, NCC

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Mr. Olukoya Ogungbeje, Lagos-based activist and lawyer, has dragged telecommunication companies operating in Nigeria as well as the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to a Lagos Federal High Court, challenging the recent barring of phone lines of citizens.

Barred Phone Lines:  Lagos Lawyer Demands N10Bn Damages from Telcos, NCC

Ogungbeje joined Dr. Aminu Maida, chief executive officer of NCC, and MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, Airtel Networks Nigeria Ltd. and Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Ltd. (EMTS 9 Mobile).

The lawyer, aside from seeking the order for award of N10 billion as general damages is also seeking the following reliefs: “A declaration that the act and action of further barring, restricting and deactivating of the applicant’s phone lines/SIM cards and the phone lines/SIM cards of Nigerian citizens by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th respondents, upon the directive of the 1st and 2nd respondents from 28th of February 2024 till date, despite a valid and subsisting order of court granted against the respondents is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, undemocratic, unconstitutional and thus prejudicial against applicant’s and other affected Nigerian citizens fundamental rights to fair hearing as enshrined under Section 36 of the 1399 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“A declaration that the respondents being creations and creatures of law are subject to the court of law and the judicial powers of the courts of law and under a legal duty and constitutional obligation to obey valid and subsisting order of court as enshrined under Section 6 (6) (b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“An order setting aside the entire directive and all its consequential effects in connection with the subject matter of this suit issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents having been made in gross violation of a valid and subsisting order of court.

“An order compelling the respondents to jointly and severally to immediately activate, debar, unlock, unblock and unrestrict the applicant’s phone lines/SIM cards and the phone lines/SIM cards of the affected Nigerian citizens forthwith.

“An order compelling the respondents to jointly and severally tender a public apology to the applicant and other affected Nigerian citizens and to pay the sum of N10 billion only as general and exemplary damages for the prejudicial, wrongful and unconstitutional action of the respondents and the inconvenience, damages and injury caused the applicant and other affected Nigerian citizens in flagrant violation of a valid and subsisting order of court.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally, whether by themselves, their agents, officers, officials, members, servants, ministries, organs, agencies or privies or anybody deriving authority from them by whatever name called from barring, restricting and of deactivating the applicant’s and other affected Nigerian citizens, phones lines/ SIM cards or taking any step, action, further step or action or untoward action or proceedings against the applicant and other affected Nigerian citizens on any fact connected with or related to the facts of this case.”

The motion which is supported with 33 paragraphs affidavit, according to the lawyer, is pursuant to Sections 36 and 46 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria; Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction imbued by Section 6 (6)(B) of constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

He also listed the following grounds upon which the reliefs were sought: “That there has been grave constitutional infraction perpetrated by the respondents against the applicant and other law abiding Nigerian citizens.

“That on the 22nd of February 2024, the court of law granted an order restraining the respondents from barring, deactivating and or restricting any phone lines/SIM cards of the applicant and Nigerian citizens.

“That the respondents have took the law into their hands by barring, deactivating and restricting the phone lines/SIM cards property of the applicant and other Nigerian citizens upon directive by the 1st and 2nd respondents despite a valid and subsisting order of court granted against the respondents on the 28th of February 2024.

“That the applicant has a constitutional right to fair nearing and right to own property guaranteed by the constitution.

“That the actions of the respondents have overreached the order of court and thus prejudicial against the applicant’s right to fair hearing.

Hence, it is not in accordance with due process of law. “That the act and action of the respondents is clearly wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional and prejudicial against the applicant’s right to fair hearing.

“That the respondents are creations and creatures of law and thus must act within the limit of the law.

“The respondents have no right to take the law into their own hands and that the constitutional safeguards to persons alleged to have committed any offence are sacrosanct and must be jealously guarded by the court.

“That the applicant has his fundamental rights protected and guaranteed under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“That the applicant has the right under Section 46 of the 1999 constitution to approach the court for redress for the breach of his rights. And that the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.”

The lawyer in his affidavit stated that his fundamental right to fair hearing and the rights of millions of Nigerian citizens guaranteed under Sections 36 of the constitution have been and is being violated by the respondents.

“That based on the above, he has filed this suit for himself and in public interest pursuant to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement procedure) Rules 2009.

“That he is the telephone subscriber of the respondents with phone numbers/lines (09139128873) and (08027208563), 08055382155, 08090220200, respectively. And that sometimes in January 2024, the respondents threatened in barring, deactivating and restricting the phone lines of Nigerian citizens whose phones lines are not linked with the National Identity Number (NIN).

“That he immediately challenged the action of the respondents culminating to the valid and subsisting court order granted on the 22nd of February 2024, restraining the respondents from barring, deactivating and restricting my phone lines and the phone lines of Nigerian citizens.

“That surprisingly, while daring the court, the first and second respondents threatened to go ahead with the act and action of barring, deactivating and restricting of phones despite a valid and subsisting court order restraining the respondents.

And that to his utmost shock, on the 28th of February 2024, he woke up only to discover that his phone lines have been barred, deactivated and restricted by the second to sixth respondents, based on the mere directive of the first and second respondents despite a subsisting order of court.

“That act and action of the second to sixth respondents in barring, deactivating and restricting his phone lines and that of Nigerian citizens upon a mere directive by the first respondent without any order of court and despite a valid and subsisting court order have caused me great loss of business opportunities, embarrassment, untold hardship, discomfort and inconvenience and hampered my business as a legal practitioner and businessman.

“That he immediately contacted his solicitors, who wrote letters to the respondents demanding a prompt reversal of their illegal act and action having been carried out without recourse to due process of law.

But the respondents have failed and refused to reply or respond to his solicitors letters till date.

“That the act and action of the respondents of restricting, barring, deactivating the phone lines of millions of Nigerian citizens is a clear brazen act of undermining the court of law and its judicial powers and thus prejudicial against their rights to fair hearing.

And that the act and action of barring, blocking deactivating and restricting my phone lines by the respondents despite a valid and subsisting court order is clearly wrongful and prejudicial against my rights and the rights of Nigerian citizens to fair hearing and right to own property.” However, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

 

 

 


Kindly share this post

Nigeria CommunicationsWeek believes that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. So since 2007, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and how they affect lives.

Telecom

Sunil Bharti Mittal Conferred GSMA Lifetime Achievement Award for Transforming Global Telecommunications

Published

on

Kindly share this post

The GSMA has conferred a rare Lifetime Achievement Award on Sunil Bharti Mittal, Founder and Chairman of Bharti Enterprises, recognising his role in reshaping the global telecommunications landscape and expanding connectivity across operators, governments, businesses and billions of consumers worldwide.

Bestowed on only a handful of industry leaders in the GSMA’s history, the honour recognises contributions that have left an enduring and defining mark on the global communications ecosystem.

The award was presented at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona in the distinguished presence of His Majesty Felipe VI, the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, the President of Catalonia, Salvador Illa, and global industry leaders.

A visionary in the telecom sector, Sunil Bharti Mittal has built Bharti Airtel into one of the world’s leading mobile operators, with operations across India and Africa, ranking among the top three globally and serving over half a billion customers.

He pioneered the expansion of mobile services across emerging markets and served as Chairman of the GSMA from 2017 to 2018, where he championed policies that encouraged investment and innovation while strengthening the industry’s commitment to connecting the unconnected and advancing digital inclusion.

He was previously honoured with the GSMA Chairman’s Award in 2008 and again in 2016 for his outstanding contribution to the growth and development of the global mobile industry and was felicitated at Mobile World Congress in February 2019 in recognition of his Chairmanship.

On receiving the award, Sunil Bharti Mittal said, “I am deeply honoured to receive this recognition and sincerely thank the GSMA for this award. I accept it not only as a personal milestone, but as a tribute to India’s telecom journey, the collective spirit of Bharti, and the rise of Indian telecom companies on the global stage.

Equally the award reflects the progress of an industry that has connected billions and belongs to the customers we serve, the teams who built our institutions, and the partners who believe in the transformative power of connectivity.

Telecommunication is a force that expands opportunity, places essential services in the palm of every individual and unlocks human potential. Helping shape its evolution into a powerful accelerator of modern progress has been a privileged responsibility. As innovation accelerates, we will continue to work with our partners & stakeholders to ensure that growth advances equity and creates lasting opportunity for generations to come.”

The Lifetime Achievement Award is a rare honour, bestowed only on select individuals whose leadership and innovation have left an enduring mark on the industry.

 


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Telecom

House Probes Fintech Regulation via Public Hearing on New Commission Bill

Published

on

Kindly share this post

House of Representatives is pushing to regulate Nigeria’s fintech sector through a public hearing on “A Bill for an Act to Establish the Nigerian Fintech Regulatory Commission and for Related Matters (HB.2389).”

House Probes Fintech Regulation via Public Hearing on New Commission Bill

Speaker Tajudeen Abbas opened the hearing, stressing the need for stakeholder inputs to craft enforceable, constitutional laws addressing regulatory overlaps in digital banking, science, technology, and communications.

Abbas highlighted fintech’s role in Nigeria’s growth via digital payments, blockchain, crowdfunding, and financial inclusion for the unbanked, creating jobs and supporting SMEs under President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

He warned that lagging regulations cause fragmentation, compliance issues, and investor uncertainty, necessitating a coordinating commission for licensing, supervision, standards, and a level playing field without duplicating bodies like the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), SEC, NITDA, or NDIC.

The commission would protect consumers, monitor cybersecurity, ensure data privacy, and promote education while complementing existing regulators.

Committee Chairman Emmanuel Ukpong-Udo, overseeing digital banking, banking regulations, science, technology, communications, capital markets, and institutions, called the bill vital for harmonizing oversight amid Nigeria’s rise as Africa’s fintech hub with 430+ firms valued at billions.

Ukpong-Udo emphasized balancing innovation, stability, and coordination to avoid burdens on startups.

Bill sponsor Fuad Kayode Laguda argued the commission would streamline operations currently split among CBN, SEC, NITDA, NOTAP, and FIRS, boosting profitability, user security, and ease of business. He cited 2024-2026 stats: 250-430 firms, $230 billion market projection, $10.6 billion valuation for top nine, and $1.6 billion in mobile transactions.

Fintech stakeholders offered mixed views, with some backing unified regulation and others fearing overlaps with current mandates.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Telecom

Why Digital Trust Matters: Secure, Responsible AI for African SMEs?

Published

on

Kindly share this post

By Kehinde Ogundare, Country Head, Zoho Nigeria

For years, security for SMEs across sub-Saharan Africa meant metal grilles and alarm systems. Today, the most significant risks are invisible and growing faster than most businesses realise.

Why Digital Trust Matters: Secure, Responsible AI for African SMEs?

Kehinde Ogundare

Artificial Intelligence has quietly embedded itself into everyday operations. The chatbot responding to customers at midnight, the system forecasting inventory requirements, and the software identifying unusual transactions are no longer experimental technologies. They are becoming standard features of modern business tools.

Last month’s observance of Safer Internet Day on February 10, themed ‘Smart tech, safe choices’, marked a pivotal moment. As AI adoption accelerates, the conversation must shift from whether businesses should use AI to how they deploy it responsibly. For SMEs across Africa, digital trust is no longer a technical consideration. It is a strategic business imperative.

The evolving threat landscape

Cybersecurity threats facing sub-Saharan African SMEs have moved well beyond basic phishing emails. Globally, cybercrime costs are projected to reach $10.5 trillion this year, fuelled by generative AI and increasingly sophisticated social engineering techniques. Ransomware attacks now paralyse entire operations, while others threats quietly extract sensitive customer data over extended periods.

The regional impact is equally significant. More than 70% of South African SMEs report experiencing at least one attempted cyberattack, Nigeria faces an average of 3,759 cyberattacks per week on its businesses, Kenya recorded 2.54 billion cyber threat incidents in the first quarter of 2025 alone, whilst Africa loses approximately 10% of its GDP to cyberattacks annually.

The hidden risk of fragmentation

A common but often overlooked vulnerability lies in digital fragmentation.

In the early stages of growth, SMEs understandably prioritise affordability and agility. Over time, this can result in a patchwork of disconnected applications, each with separate logins, security standards, and privacy policies. What begins as flexibility can involve into operational complexity.

According to IBM Security’s Cost of a Data Breach Report, companies with highly fragmented security environments experienced average breach costs of $4.88 million in 2024.

Fragmented systems create blind spots, each additional data transfer between applications increases exposure. Inconsistent security protocols make governance harder to enforce. Limited visibility reduces the ability to detect anomalies early. In practical terms, complexity increases risk.

Privacy-first AI as a competitive differentiator

As AI capabilities become embedded in business software, SMEs face a choice about how they approach these powerful tools. The risks are not merely theoretical.

Consumers across Africa are becoming more aware of data rights and willing to walk away from businesses that cannot demonstrate trustworthiness. According to KPMG’s Trust in AI report, approximately 70% of adults do not trust companies to use AI responsibly, and 81% expect misuse. Meanwhile, studies also show that 71% of consumers would stop doing business with a company that mishandles information.

Trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild. In the digital age, a single data leak can destroy a reputation that took ten years to build. When customers share their payment details or purchase history, they extend trust. How you handle that trust, particularly when AI processes their data, determines whether they return or take their business elsewhere.

Privacy-first, responsible AI design means building intelligence into business systems with data protection, transparency and ethical use embedded from the outset. It involves collecting only necessary information, storing it securely, being transparent about how AI makes decisions, and ensuring algorithms work without compromising customer privacy. For SMEs, this might mean choosing inventory software where predictive AI runs on your own data without sending it externally, or customer service platforms that analyse patterns without exposing individual records. When AI is built responsibly into unified platforms, it becomes a competitive advantage: you gain operational efficiency whilst demonstrating that customer data is protected, not exploited.

Unified platforms and operational resilience

The solution lies in rethinking digital infrastructure. Rather than accumulating disparate tools, businesses need unified platforms that integrate core functions whilst maintaining consistent security protocols.

A unified approach means choosing cloud-based platforms where functions share common security standards and data flows seamlessly. For a manufacturing SME, this means inventory management, order processing and financial reporting operate within a single security framework.

When everything operates cohesively, security gaps diminish and the attack surface shrinks. And the benefits extend beyond risk reduction: employees spend less time on administrative friction, customer data stays consistent, and platforms enable secure collaboration without traditional infrastructure costs.

Safer Internet Day reminds us that the digital world requires active stewardship. For SMEs across the African continent who are navigating complex threats whilst harnessing AI’s potential, digital trust is foundational to sustainable growth. Security, privacy and responsible AI are essential characteristics of any technology infrastructure worth building upon. Businesses that embrace unified, privacy-first platforms will be more resilient against cyber threats and better positioned to earn and maintain trust. In a market where trust is currency, that advantage is everything.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending