Are Regulators Signalling a New Era of Accountability?
By Elvis Eromosele
For years, Nigerian consumers have complained, sometimes loudly, sometimes helplessly, about poor services. Airlines, telecom operators and banks were always the biggest culprits. In fact, flight delays became routine, dropped calls almost normal, and unexplained bank charges a recurring irritation. What often followed were apologies, excuses and the almost obligatory regulatory silence.
It now appears that that era may finally be ending.
Recent moves by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), alongside a growing pattern of firm enforcement by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), suggest that regulators are beginning to assert their authority more forcefully. The message is becoming clearer: protect consumers, or pay the price.
The NCAA’s recent warning to domestic airlines over chronic flight delays marks one of its strongest public stances in recent years. In a sector long shielded by sympathy for “operational challenges,” the regulator has now signalled that patience is wearing thin.
According to NCAA data, between September and October 2024 alone, domestic airlines recorded 5,225 delays and 901 cancellations out of 10,804 flights. This means that nearly half of all flights were delayed. While weather and technical issues are unavoidable realities of aviation, the NCAA argues that persistent inefficiency, poor planning and weak communication are not.
What appears to have triggered the tougher tone is not just the delays themselves, but how passengers are treated when things go wrong. Complaints about lack of information, poor handling at terminals and disregard for First Needs Compensation have become increasingly common.
By referencing JetBlue’s $2 million fine in the United States for chronic delays, the NCAA is clearly signalling its intent to align Nigeria’s aviation regulation with global best practices. Support for airlines, the regulator insists, must now be matched by accountability and service improvement.
The NCC’s warning to telecom operators follows a similar pattern: longstanding consumer frustration, followed by a regulator armed with data and renewed resolve.
Telecom subscribers have endured dropped calls, slow internet speeds and unstable connections, even as tariffs increase and digital dependence deepens. The NCC’s response has been to partner with Ookla to produce a transparent, data-backed assessment of network performance across operators.
The results were revealing. MTN emerged as the strongest performer nationally, while others showed notable weaknesses, Globacom with high latency and jitter, Airtel grappling with transition challenges, and 9mobile delivering inconsistent service across regions.
More important than the rankings, however, is the regulatory shift they represent. By grounding enforcement in independent performance data, the NCC is moving away from abstract warnings to evidence-based regulation.
Underperforming operators can no longer hide behind generic claims or marketing slogans.
The commission’s message is blunt: improve network quality, especially latency and stability, or face sanctions.
In a digital economy where banking, commerce, education and healthcare increasingly rely on connectivity, poor service is no longer a minor inconvenience; it is a systemic risk.
Unlike the NCAA and NCC, the Central Bank of Nigeria has already shown what tough regulation looks like in practice.
Over the past few years, the CBN has sanctioned several banks and financial institutions for regulatory breaches ranging from Know-Your-Customer (KYC) failures and anti-money laundering lapses to poor consumer protection practices. In some cases, banks have been fined billions of naira, publicly named, or restricted from certain operations.
The apex bank has also pushed aggressively on issues such as illegal charges, customer complaint resolution timelines, and data protection. The introduction of frameworks like the Consumer Protection Regulation (CPR) and the Global Standing Instruction (GSI) reflects a broader philosophy: financial institutions must serve customers responsibly or face consequences.
Taken together, the actions of the NCAA, NCC and CBN point to a potential turning point in Nigeria’s regulatory culture. For too long, regulators were perceived as either underpowered or overly sympathetic to operators, often citing harsh operating environments as justification for weak enforcement.
That narrative is changing.
The common thread across these sectors is the growing recognition that consumer protection is not optional. Airlines, telcos and banks operate in challenging environments, but they also provide essential services. When failures become systemic rather than exceptional, regulation must intervene decisively.
There is also a political dimension. Public frustration with poor service delivery is rising, and regulators are under pressure to demonstrate relevance. By taking tougher stances, agencies signal not only professionalism but alignment with broader governance expectations.
For operators, the implications are clear. Compliance can no longer be treated as a box-ticking exercise. Investments in infrastructure, customer service, communication systems and operational planning are no longer optional; they are survival strategies.
For consumers, the shift offers cautious optimism. Stronger regulation does not automatically translate to better service, but it creates the conditions for improvement. When penalties are real and enforcement credible, behaviour changes.
The real test, however, lies ahead. Warnings must be followed by action. Sanctions must be consistent, transparent and fair. Regulators must resist pressure, lobbying and regulatory capture.
Yes, after years of looking the other way, Nigeria’s regulators appear to be waking up. The question now is whether they will stay awake.
Eromosele, a corporate communications expert and sustainability advocate, wrote via: elviseroms@gmail.com