As Madam Dora Blows Hot and Cold
Behind The Figures By Ijeoma Nwogwugwu,email:ijeomanwogwugwu@thisdayonline.com, 06.08.2009

I have watched with increasing bewilderment as Dora Akunyili, the Information and Communications Minister, has stumbled from one controversy to the other since her promotion to cabinet rank late last year. Her stance on several issues seems to have confirmed several commentators’ misgivings on her deployment in the ministry. She would have been better suited to the health ministry where her real talents lie, they said at the time. Given her stint at the information and communications ministry so far, I am inclined to think that they were right.
But the powers that be thought otherwise. She was adored and feted by the press and was in turn media savvy; prerequisite qualities which some officials in government felt were necessary for anyone appointed to handle the information and communications portfolio. I wonder if they still feel the same way having watched her transit from the rebranding fiasco of the country, which was dead on arrival, to her interference in the regulatory functions of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
Her latest spat, for instance, with NCC over the licensing regime for the national frequency spectrum in the 2.3GHz band could have been better handled had she set her emotions aside. That she went as far as forwarding petitions sent to her office by some aggrieved prospective licensees who felt that they were not given sufficient time to pay for the licences to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and that the EFCC gave the issue the time of day, was an anomaly in itself. Perhaps Madam Akunyili forgot that the EFCC was set up to investigate economic crimes perpetuated in the country across board and not to investigate procedural lapses by departments and agencies of government.
If madam had issues with the timing given to companies interested in acquiring the so-called licences, or felt that due process was not followed during the licensing process, her ministry which ordinarily should have a unit responsible for enforcing due process, should have been directed to handle the matter. This would have saved everyone the bother of having to witness what, apparently, was a battle for supremacy over who should superintend the telecommunications industry in the country.
Moreover, a review of the allegations and complaints against the licensing regime conducted by NCC for the frequency spectrum shows that they were brought to the fore after the fact. Encouraged by Akunyili’s antics, the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and Nigerian Frequency Management Council (NFMC) suddenly found their voices and questioned the rationale behind NCC’s decision to licence operators without waiting for the frequencies to be released to the commission. The questions that come to mind are were these agencies not in existence when the NCC placed advertisements in the newspapers inviting companies interested in acquiring the licences to pay for them within a specified time frame? And why did they keep quiet until Akunyili took up the mantle of the aggrieved parties and needed some justification to cancel the licensing before they spoke up? Clearly, what transpired in the last few weeks amounted to boot licking on the part of officials of the NBC and NFMC, and was a glaring case of needing to give a dog a bad name in order to justify its hanging.
More importantly, madam seems to be under the impression that the NCC is your run of the mill department or parastatal under her ministry. It is not. The NCC is an independent regulatory commission set up by the NCC Act of 1992. The commission is charged with the responsibility of regulating the supply of telecommunications services and facilities, promoting competition, and setting performance standards for telephony services in Nigeria.
The ministry, on the other hand, is largely responsible for general policy formulation; negotiation and execution of international communication treaties and agreements on behalf of Nigeria, between sovereign countries and other international bodies; and representation, in conjunction with the NCC, at proceedings of international organisations in matters relating to communications. The ministry is also responsible for rural telephony projects in the country.
Section 121(1) of the Communications Act of 2003 further grants the NCC sole and exclusive powers to manage and administer the frequency spectrum for the communication sector, and in that regard to grant licences for and regulate the use of the said frequency spectrum. While sub-section (2) states that the power of the minister under the wireless telegraphy so far as they relate to communications are vested in the commission. Under Section 123 (1), the commission is empowered to make regulations in relation to licensing “that may include procedures for the assignment of spectrum such as, but not limited to: a) an auction; b) tender; or c) fixed price to be determined by the commission.
In addition to the above, the Telecommunications Policy of 2000 recognises the independence of the NCC with regard to licensing, tariff regulation, interconnection disputes and other matters directly affecting industry operators, in an impartial and independent manner. Essentially, in no section of the laws empowering the NCC or under the Telecommunications Policy is the minister/ministry granted the responsibility of licensing and/or empowered to interfere in the process in any shape or form.
What is expected is for the minister to maintain an arm’s length approach and maintain limited dealings with both the NCC and industry operators in the telecommunications industry, as is applicable in the banking, capital market, insurance, pensions, and other sectors that have independent regulatory bodies. A similar case that readily comes to mind is the role assumed by the finance ministry when it was overwhelmed with petitions two years ago after the recapitalisation and licensing regime for insurance companies in the country. In spite of the petitions, it did not cancel the process. Instead, the ministry set up a committee to review the process undertaken by the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM). However, in contravention of the laws and policy for the telecoms sector, Akunyili acted on her emotions and delved into areas that she had no business getting involved in.
Even more worrisome is Akunyili’s promise to lower phone tariffs. Again this is the responsibility of the NCC and not the minister, who more often than not is a politician and panders to public sentiments. Had Akunyili had some understanding of telecoms operations, she would have known that there are several underlying factors that make up operators’ costs and determine the tariff structure in an environment. As a member of the federal cabinet, no one needs to educate madam on the difficulties businesses contend with operating in the Nigerian terrain.
This is a country that boasts of scant electricity. Consequently, all operators are compelled to set up at least two power generators for every base station (running into several thousands) they set up in the country, and each of these generating sets must be powered by diesel. In addition to this, every operator has to contend with right of way and land occupancy issues imposed by state governments and land owners that extract a premium from telecoms firms to allow them to set up their infrastructure.
These are just two of several other issues, not to mention insecurity that operators have to deal with in the course of doing business in Nigeria. But while these problems cannot absolve operators from the poor quality of service that they provide subscribers, Akunyili needs to understand that the most critical factor required to force down tariffs is competition. This again is where the NCC comes in and not the Ministry of Information and Communications.
The point here is that Akunyili by her actions has undermined the regulator in charge of telecommunications oversight in this country. She has opened the doors for telecoms operators with real and imagined grievances against the commission to circumvent it by going straight to the ministry to lodge complaints and apply undue pressure on the NCC. This is wrong and should be nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand.
Personally, I have always viewed the information and communications ministry as a department of government as a pointless bureaucracy. No modern, democratic government in the world needs an information ministry to serve as a propaganda organ where its president or prime minister has a press secretary or adviser(s) for communications and media with offices that pretty much carry out the same functions as that of an information minister. Under these environments, government-owned electronic and print media outfits are answerable to independent regulatory authorities and parliament, as the case may be.
In the same vein, several nations that have liberalised their telecommunications sectors, have scrapped their communications ministries and substituted them with independent regulatory institutions that also report directly to the legislature. For instance, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), UK and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US, after which the NCC was modelled, were set up to provide independent regulatory and policy oversight for the telecommunications sectors in these countries. In fact when Ofcom was established in 2003, it inherited the duties of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, and that of the Radiocommunications Agency. Even the South African government which has a full fledged communications ministry, does not saddle it with information and media management.
Sadly, given Nigeria’s propensity to maintain redundant institutions and man it with public servants that are a drain on the public treasury, avoidable spectacles such as the one between Akunyili and Ernest Ndukwe, Executive Vice-Chairman of NCC, would remain a regular staple on the country’s menu.


http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=145542

Hot and Cold indeed!