Joy Agwunobi
The past week in Nigeria has seen a surge of reactions following the approval of a 50% increase in telecommunications tariffs.
This decision has sparked heated debates from both telecom operators and consumers, each with their own set of concerns. Telecom operators argue that the hike is necessary for the survival of their businesses, as they face soaring operational costs. On the other hand, consumers, already struggling with inflation and a devalued naira, are resisting any additional financial strain.
In a recent televised interview, Rotimi Akapo, a partner at Advocaat Law Practice, shared his thoughts on the situation. He stated that the tariff increase should be viewed from three distinct perspectives: that of the regulator (government), the consumer (subscriber), and the telecom operator.
From the government’s standpoint, Akapo emphasised the delicate balancing act regulators must maintain. “The role of the regulator is to ensure a balance between consumer protection and the industry’s sustainability,” he said. “This is a tricky task. It’s like walking on a minefield — one wrong step, and you could face a significant fallout. If the operators are unhappy, the consumers may find relief, and vice versa. It’s crucial for both the government and the regulator to navigate this minefield with care.”
Addressing the consumer’s perspective, Akapo explained the mounting economic pressure Nigerians are facing. “If you look at the Nigerian consumer today, they are overwhelmed by economic challenges, most of which are negative. Inflation has been hovering around 30 per cent for months, and the naira has lost more than half of its value in under two years. Everything is becoming more expensive — food prices, transportation and so on . So, the consumer is already financially strained and is unlikely to welcome any tariff hikes. They simply cannot bear any more burdens.”
Shifting to the operator’s viewpoint, Akapo noted the operators’ need for the tariff increase to stay afloat in the face of rising costs. “From the operator’s side, their argument is that the last tariff adjustment occurred more than a decade ago. In that time, they have endured inflation, currency devaluation, and escalating operational costs, especially energy costs, which have risen by about 300 per cent in the last two years. Given this, the operators argue that they need a tariff increase to keep their businesses viable,” he explained.
Akapo further elaborated on the negotiation process between the government and telecom operators. “Initially, the operators demanded a 500 per cent increase. Over time, this was reduced to a 100 per cent increase, and ultimately, the government settled on a 50 per cent rise. As a result, neither side is fully satisfied. The operators still feel shortchanged, while consumers are naturally against any increase. The government, in the middle of these competing interests, has had to make a decision that maintains some semblance of balance.”
Additionally, Akapo expressed understanding of the government’s predicament. “I sympathise with the government’s position. They didn’t have much of a choice. The prices of nearly everything including electricity have gone up, and the government is trying to manage all these pressures and maintain a balance.”
The impact on vulnerable Nigerians
Joshua Dada, a consultant at the Law Hub Development and Advocacy Centre, also raised concerns about the cumulative financial burden on Nigerians. He pointed out that recent hikes in fuel, electricity, and now telecom tariffs have placed an overwhelming strain on the public, particularly the most vulnerable.
He said, “Over the last couple of years, the government has increased the number of services enjoyed by Nigerians. In 2023, we were greeted with the fuel subsidy removal, which increased the pump price from about 200 naira to about 1,000 naira, that’s about a 500% increase. In 2024, we greeted the electricity tariff increase, especially for the Band A consumers, which took it up by about 300%. And now, in 2025, we are greeted with a new telecom tariff as well, increased by about 50 per cent.”
Dada noted the significant impact of these increases on the most vulnerable groups, stating, “Quite clearly, the people most impacted by this are the consumers. And unfortunately, the people who are more severely impacted are those who are not very well off. These are the people who would feel the increase the most, he said, adding that “the government is elected to protect the welfare of the people. It’s disheartening to see policies that seem to directly affect the well-being of the citizens it has sworn to serve.”
Though Dada acknowledged that the 50 per cent increase may seem like a compromise, he noted that many Nigerians feel it is too high. “People want better. They perhaps want nothing at all, or, like the umbrella body was saying, perhaps between 5 to 10 per cent increase would be a fairer increase.”
To mitigate the economic impact of the hike, Dada proposed delaying its implementation or phasing it in gradually. He suggested, “They should halt the implementation for now. The shock on the economy will be too severe, especially considering everything that has been happening recently. The implementation can also be phased. Instead of a full 50% increase at once, it could be spread over 12 months or two years, with a 5% increase each year. This way, we can absorb the increase gradually, rather than facing a sharp hike.”
He also recommended a more targeted approach, noting that, “In terms of interventions, the telecom companies could perhaps target the increase, similar to the electricity increase, which was aimed at Band A consumers. The telecoms have a similar structure in place, where they can identify the highest consumers. Instead of a blanket increase, targeting the biggest consumers could mitigate the impact, as a blanket hike would hit the most vulnerable hardest. There are people who only spend 100 naira over three or four days, and that amount is a significant burden for them.”
On the telecom industry’s claim for higher tariffs to fund infrastructure investments, Dada stated, “There are different ways to seek investment or funding for infrastructure, such as the capital market. I don’t think the final consumers should bear the immediate burden of these investments. Businesses have opportunities to access capital and funding to improve services, and this should not fall entirely on the consumers.”
