Nigeria’s states take widely different approaches to the cost of laying fibre-optic cables. Some have waived Right of Way (RoW) fees; others charge the ₦145-per-metre benchmark, while Ogun State charges up to ₦6,600 ($4.84) per metre. Yet these differences do not neatly explain where fibre infrastructure has been built, raising questions about what else drives investment.
Administrative reforms and project-specific concessions may help offset high fees, but there is little evidence that they do so systematically. The Lagos State Infrastructure Maintenance and Regulatory Agency (LASIMRA) describes itself as a one-stop regulator for utility infrastructure, and the state has announced an online permitting system to streamline approvals for fibre, masts and towers. However, the announcement does not establish whether the system has reduced processing times or costs or removed requirements such as environmental approvals.
Ogun has also reportedly waived RoW charges for a specific 250-kilometre MainOne deployment, but that historical concession does not establish that similar incentives are generally available today. There is no verified evidence of a telecom-specific tax-break programme that explains the substantial fibre networks in these high-fee states. Without access to operators’ permits, concession agreements and investment decisions, it remains unclear whether incentives offset the charges or whether companies invest despite them.
Data from the Nigerian Communications Commission’s (NCC) Ease of Doing Business portal, published in July 2026, shows that Ogun has 4,246.48 kilometres of deployed fibre, while Kano and Rivers, which charge ₦2,754 (2.02) and ₦2,256(1.65) per metre respectively, have 4,616.71 kilometres and 4,616.01 kilometres. Delta, with a rate of ₦2,706 ($1.98) per metre, has 4,202.62 kilometres.
RoW charges are only one component of deployment costs. Trenching and duct installation also depend on ground conditions, water crossings, construction methods and access to existing infrastructure. The NCC portal’s fee and deployment indicators do not provide route-level construction costs. Broader evidence establishes why this matters: the World Bank identifies civil works as the dominant component of certain broadband deployments, accounting for up to 80% of costs in some cases.
At the other end of the spectrum, Ebonyi, which charges a ₦145 benchmark, has just 586.92 kilometres of fibre. Bayelsa, at ₦850 ($0.62) per metre, has a length of 656.87 kilometres. Jigawa and Zamfara, both of which have waived the fee, have 970.10 kilometres and 1,100.98 kilometres, respectively.
The disparity raises a critical question about closing Nigeria’s connectivity gaps: what will persuade operators to invest in places they have largely overlooked? Lower fees may reduce deployment costs, but they do not necessarily make a project commercially viable. Understanding what drives investment is essential to ensuring that these reforms extend broadband to underserved communities, rather than simply lowering costs in places where operators already intend to build.
High fees, low deployment
Ogun presents a particularly striking case. Its ₦6,600 ($4.84) per metre fee is more than 45 times the ₦145 ($0.11) benchmark. A hypothetical 10-kilometre deployment would attract ₦66 million ($48,387) in RoW charges alone, compared with ₦1.45 million ($1,063) at the benchmark rate.
Despite this high charge, Ogun has more than 4,200 kilometres of deployed fibre. Kano and Rivers also have more than 4,600 kilometres each, despite charging substantially above the benchmark. These existing networks indicate that operators have built significant infrastructure in high-fee jurisdictions, driven by commercial markets, strategic transport corridors, enterprise customers, and existing telecoms infrastructure.
The comparison with low-fee states raises the opposite question. Ebonyi’s 586.92 kilometres of fibre and Bayelsa’s 656.87 kilometres are substantially below the footprints in Ogun, Kano, and Rivers. Jigawa and Zamfara also have fewer than 1,200 kilometres despite waiving RoW charges. A waiver removes one cost from a deployment project, but it does not guarantee that expected revenue will justify construction, equipment, maintenance, and security costs where demand is limited.
The picture is not uniformly unfavourable to states that have reduced or eliminated their fees. Kaduna, which has waived RoW charges, has 4,339.85 kilometres of fibre, putting it among Nigeria’s leading states for deployment. Anambra, another zero-fee state, has 2,547.34 kilometres, while Niger has 3,383.43 kilometres.
These examples matter because they show that a zero-fee policy and a substantial fibre footprint can coexist. However, total fibre figures reflect accumulated infrastructure over time rather than recent policy impacts. A state with a large network may have attracted investment before reducing its fees, while a state with a smaller network may have introduced a waiver recently and has yet to see its full effect.
Lagos exposes a separate pricing problem
Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory complicate the argument that high right-of-way (RoW) fees necessarily deter investment. The NCC portal lists Lagos’s RoW charge at ₦850 ($0.62) per metre and the FCT’s at ₦950 ($0.70). Yet Lagos has 11,586.70 kilometres of fibre, while the FCT has 6,973.13 kilometres. Together, they account for 18,559.83 kilometres, or 18.35% of Nigeria’s reported 101,148.36-kilometre fibre network.
Their sizeable networks reflect the concentration of businesses, financial institutions, government agencies, data centres and other major connectivity users in both locations. But Lagos also exposes a problem beyond its fees: inconsistent published rates. While the NCC portal lists ₦850 ($0.62) per metre, the Lagos State Infrastructure Maintenance and Regulatory Agency (LASIMRA) lists ₦1,500 ($1.10) per metre for fibre. It also publishes a ₦50,000 ($36.66) application fee and an administrative and project-management charge equivalent to 15% of permit fees.
For operators, the discrepancy makes expansion costs harder to predict. A 10-kilometre fibre route would attract a base charge of ₦8.5 million ($6,232) at the NCC-listed rate, compared with ₦15 million ($11,000) at LASIMRA’s rate—a difference of ₦6.5 million ($4,765) before additional charges. If LASIMRA’s 15% administrative and project-management fee applies to the base fibre permit charge, it would add ₦2.25 million ($1,650). Including the ₦50,000 ($36.66) application fee, the total would reach ₦17.3 million ($12,683) before construction costs. This is an illustrative calculation, not a confirmed invoice; operators need clarity on which schedule applies.
The NCC acknowledges that rates may differ and directs operators to confirm the applicable charges with LASIMRA before making payments. “Charges may vary depending on project location and scope. Operators are advised to engage the Lagos State Infrastructure Maintenance and Regulatory Agency (LASIMRA) for updated rates and guidelines,” the commission says on its website.
The problem extends beyond the amount operators pay to the uncertainty surrounding their costs. Higher upfront fees tie up capital that could fund other deployment needs, while inconsistent rates make it harder to budget for projects and assess their commercial viability.
Lagos’s extensive fibre network shows that substantial infrastructure can coexist with high charges, but it does not establish that those charges do not affect future investment. Operators must still weigh the full cost of deployment against expected demand, particularly on less profitable routes. Clear, consistently applied fees could reduce uncertainty and improve the prospects of projects that might otherwise struggle to make commercial sense.
Fibre kilometres are not capital expenditure
The length of a fibre network offers a useful measure of deployment, but it is not a direct measure of investment. Costs vary with route conditions, excavation and road reinstatement, equipment, network design, and the extent to which operators can use existing infrastructure. A longer network does not necessarily mean more capital was invested, just as a shorter one does not automatically indicate weaker investment.
Determining whether lower RoW fees attract investment requires data that links policy changes to actual deployment. The NCC and state governments should publish annual figures on new fibre laid, along with the dates of fee changes, permit applications, approval times and operators’ state-level capital expenditure. Such data would help distinguish the effect of lower fees from other factors influencing where operators build.
A commissioner in a northern state, who requested anonymity because of concerns about the upcoming general elections, said little had changed since the state adopted a ₦145-per-metre fee. The commissioner also pointed to Nasarawa, which has waived the charge but, in the commissioner’s assessment, has yet to see an improvement in infrastructure deployment. He did not provide specific figures for operator permit applications submitted before and after the adoption of the ₦145 fee.
These accounts suggest that lower fees alone may not be enough to spur investment, although assessing their effect requires time-series data on deployment and capital expenditure.
Anambra State, meanwhile, views its zero-fee policy as a long-term investment in connectivity rather than an immediate revenue driver.
“Anambra’s zero-RoW-fee policy is a strategic investment in expanding broadband infrastructure, improving connectivity and accelerating digital inclusion,” Chukwuemeka Fred Agbata Jnr., managing director and chief executive of the Anambra State ICT Agency, told TechCabal. “We see it as an enabler of long-term digital growth, with continued efforts to deepen infrastructure deployment across the state.”
Move beyond assuming cheaper fees automatically produce more fibre. Ogun, Kano, and Rivers maintain substantial networks despite high charges, while Ebonyi, Bayelsa, and Jigawa have comparatively little infrastructure despite lower fees. High fees do not halt expansion where strong commercial demand exists, just as waivers cannot single-handedly make an unviable market profitable.
For state governments, the real test is whether lower fees are followed by faster approvals, newly laid fibre, greater capital investment, and expanded connectivity beyond major urban centres. Until states systematically track and report new construction following policy changes, fee reductions remain an input into investment policy—not proof that investment has actually increased.
South Africa’s spam calls reached 17.5 billion in the first half of 2026. Now, the government wants companies to prove they have checked who they call before they press send.
The National Consumer Commission (NCC), South Africa’s consumer watchdog, launched a National Opt-Out Registry on Wednesday that will allow consumers to pre-emptively block unwanted direct marketing.
The registry is part of a sweeping government effort to tackle South Africa’s growing spam-call problem. Marketers will have to register with the system and cleanse their lists every month before running campaigns. Fintechs, banks, telcos, insurers, retailers and other digital businesses will need to build consumer opt-outs into their marketing systems.
Truecaller’s 2026 South Africa Spam Report found that there were 17.5 billion spam calls between January and June, 25.2% higher than the same period in 2025. Spam short message service (SMS) messages also jumped 58.9% to 3.7 billion
The numbers help explain why the NCC is moving beyond asking consumers to ignore or block unwanted messages and is instead imposing obligations on the companies that send them.
Parks Tau, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, said the growing sophistication of spam and scams required a stronger regulatory response.
“South Africans are becoming more alert, but alertness alone cannot substitute for a proper regulatory backstop,” Tau said at the launch. “Scam and marketing networks are becoming more sophisticated, using spoofing and artificial intelligence to reach consumers.”
The registry gives effect to Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which gives consumers the right to block unwanted direct marketing communication. Tau believes the issue relates to data and privacy, as more companies rely on personal information to reach potential customers.
“Section 14 of our Constitution guarantees everyone the right to privacy. A person’s phone number, email address and time are not raw material to be harvested and traded without their consent,” he said.
For companies, however, the challenge will be translating that principle into their existing marketing systems.
The NCC said direct marketers have been able to register on the registry since September 15 and have until December 2026 to complete their registration. They will then have five months, from December to April 2027, to cleanse their marketing lists and prepare to interface with the system at no cost.
From May 2027, registered consumers will be able to pre-emptively block direct marketers from contacting them.
The registry means companies will have to account for it before launching campaigns, potentially requiring changes to customer databases, campaign-management tools, and internal compliance processes.
“This is a momentous occasion for consumers who have for years been flooded with unwanted direct marketing,” Hardin Ratshisusu, the NCC’s Acting Commissioner, said. “The National Opt-Out Registry will promote responsible direct marketing, ensuring consumers are protected from unwanted direct marketing through spam calls, texts, e-mails and other electronic communication.”
The NCC said the phased rollout will give businesses time to prepare and that it will publish further guidance while running a consumer education programme.
True scale demands moving beyond surface-level integrations to robust execution. We’ve filtered the noise out of Moonshot 2026, optimising the conference strictly for high-calibre connections between startup founders, global financial operators, enterprise leaders and individuals rewiring Africa’s technical frameworks. Get 20% off Early Bird tickets for a limited time.
Comments
Post a Comment