The House of Representatives still has an opportunity to correct course. By reaffirming the enforceability of duly issued regulations, clarifying the limits of committee authority, and recommitting to fair, neutral oversight, it can restore confidence in parliamentary governance. Doing so would not weaken the House; it would strengthen it.
The House of Representatives occupies a sacred place in Nigeria’s constitutional architecture. It is entrusted not only with lawmaking, but with safeguarding the rule of law through principled, impartial oversight. When that responsibility is compromised, the damage extends far beyond institutional embarrassment — it strikes at the heart of democratic governance. Recent actions surrounding the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025 (DEON Regulations) raise troubling questions about whether that duty has been faithfully discharged.
Oversight is not a licence to substitute opinion for law. It is not a mechanism for suspending valid regulations by committee correspondence, nor a platform for conferring informal exemptions on powerful market actors. Yet, the conduct of the Special Ad-Hoc Committee on Overlapping Jurisdictions, Procedural Gaps and Investor Concerns has created precisely that impression. By circulating a letter purporting to place binding regulations “in abeyance,” the Committee stepped outside constitutional bounds and into dangerous territory.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has now made it unambiguous that the DEON Regulations remain valid and enforceable. This clarity only sharpens the concern: how did a House committee come to act in a manner that undermines the very laws passed by the National Assembly itself? Subsidiary legislation made pursuant to an Act of Parliament is not advisory. It cannot be wished away by legislative discomfort, industry pressure, or perceived investor unease. If the House believes a regulation is flawed, the Constitution provides lawful routes for addressing this — through amendment, repeal, or judicial interpretation. Anything else is institutional overreach.
Even more troubling is the apparent failure of process. A regulator invited to an investigative hearing was denied the opportunity to be heard, while public statements were allegedly made suggesting that conclusions had already been reached. Such conduct offends the principle of fair hearing and erodes the neutrality that legislative oversight demands. Oversight that begins with a verdict is not oversight at all; it is prejudice dressed in procedure.
The consequences of this failure are not theoretical. By creating the impression that the DEON Regulations could be ignored, the House inadvertently handed undue advantage to dominant telecommunications companies and their lending partners. Smaller operators who invested in compliance were left exposed, while powerful incumbents gained regulatory cover to continue business as usual. This is not market fairness; it is distortion sanctioned by silence.
When Parliament appears to side — intentionally or otherwise — with entrenched market power, it weakens Nigeria’s competition framework and undermines consumer protection. It also sends a chilling signal to regulators tasked with enforcing the law: that their authority is provisional, subject to political pressure rather than statutory mandate. No serious regulatory system can survive under such conditions.
Members of the House must ask themselves a hard question. Is oversight being exercised in the public interest, or has it drifted into accommodation of influence? Is Parliament protecting consumers and the integrity of the market, or enabling regulatory arbitrage by the most powerful actors in the economy? History is unkind to legislatures that blur this line.
Nigeria’s digital economy depends on strong institutions that respect boundaries. Regulators must regulate. Courts must adjudicate. Legislators must legislate and oversee — without usurping executive or judicial functions. When these roles are confused, the rule of law becomes negotiable, and governance loses credibility.
The House of Representatives still has an opportunity to correct course. By reaffirming the enforceability of duly issued regulations, clarifying the limits of committee authority, and recommitting to fair, neutral oversight, it can restore confidence in parliamentary governance. Doing so would not weaken the House; it would strengthen it.
The alternative — allowing informal actions to erode lawful regulation while powerful corporations benefit — risks turning oversight into complicity. That is a legacy no responsible legislature should accept.
Bola Aliu, a tech journalist, writes from Lagos.
