Dipo Olowookere
By Dipo Olowookere
The House of Representatives is raising eyebrows over the appointment of Dr Ernest Ndukwe to the board of MTN Nigeria Plc.
At the plenary on Thursday, the lower chamber of the National Assembly accused the leading network service provider of choosing former heads of the country’s key regulatory agencies to its board at the detriment of its competitors.
Recall that Mr Ndukwe served as the Executive Vice Chairman of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) for 10 years from 2000 to 2010.
NCC is the key agency regulating the telecommunications industry in the country. Mr Ndukwe, who now serves as the Chairman, Board of Directors of MTN Nigeria, was in charge of the NCC when MTN Nigeria secured a licence to operate in the country.
When Mr Ndukwe was appointed to the board in July 2019, though his appointment became effective September 2, 2019, the company also selected Ifueko Omoigui-Okauru and Mrs Mobolaji Johnson to the same board.
Mrs Omogui-Okauru once served as the Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), while Mrs Johnson also once served as the Minister of Communications.
According to the reps, the appointment of these personalities to the board of MTN Nigeria was “premeditated and a tactful play by MTN Nigeria to influence the policies of the regulatory bodies they headed in its favour.”
The lower chamber of the parliament noted that this should be discouraged because MTN Nigeria, which has not had it good with the Nigerian government in the past, could be “ingeniously working against the interests of Nigerians” with the appointments of former regulators of key sectors.
The House specifically stressed that someone like Mr Ndukwe, who must have made appointments into the NCC while he was in charge, could have access to classified information from those he appointed to the commission now occupying sensitive positions.
In view of this, the green chamber resolved to mandate its committee on telecommunications to “investigate the corporate governance of the NCC from 2000 to date, including the appointment of its current board of directors in order to protect subscribers from the influence of a dominant service provider and report back within eight weeks for further legislative action.”
