Compliance is often touted as a virtue in business and governance, implying a willingness to adhere to rules and regulations. However, in times of citizen agitation and social unrest, compliance can become a double-edged sword. On one hand, it demonstrates a commitment to upholding the law and respecting authority. On the other hand, it can be perceived as complicity with a government that citizens are agitating against, hence the compliant company is perceived as an enemy of the people. The recent experience of MTN Nigeria, which suffered social media and physical attacks merely for complying with the regulator’s directive, serves as a stark illustration of this dilemma.
Citizen agitation in Nigeria has been simmering for years, with growing discontent over the government’s handling of various issues, including economic stagnation, insecurity, and corruption. The latest expression of this frustration is the planned August 1 protest, which has been gaining momentum on social media. The basis of the proposed protest is a demand for better governance, which includes bringing down the cost of living with inflation at 34.2 per cent and ending corruption, hunger and highhandedness of the security agencies.
One challenge of the government regarding the call for protest is that it does not know who the organisers are. Perhaps, this is a good strategy for the organisers, as the government cannot be trusted to not arrest them. The government’s response to the protesters has been characteristically un-empathetic, with officials dismissing their concerns and warning against any form of unrest. This approach has only served to fuel the anger and frustration of the protesters, who feel that their voices are not being heard.
Social media has played a significant role in driving the conversation around the planned protest, with various hashtags trending on X and other platforms. The online campaign has helped to galvanise support for the protest, with many Nigerians expressing their discontent with the government’s handling of various issues. The government has not stayed silent, as its spokespersons and advocates have also been speaking on social media, but they do not seem to be connecting with the agitators online as their approach is largely to use fearmongering, threats and misinformation. For example, a top functionary of the Bola Tinubu government, Bayo Onanuga, accused Peter Obi, former presidential candidate of the Labour Party, of spearheading the protest in expression of anger over losing the 2023 presidential election. Such blatant attempts to mislead the public have only fuelled the protest.
Suffice it to say that the recent wave of protests across Africa, including the violent clashes in Kenya and other parts of the continent, has emboldened Nigerians to demand change through similar means. The successes and challenges faced by these movements have served as a catalyst, inspiring Nigerians to take to the streets and demand better governance. However, this trend has sent jitters down the spines of Nigerian authorities, who fear a repeat of the violence that followed the EndSARS protests in 2020.
Businesses in Nigeria are caught in the web of the civil agitation in the country. According to the World Bank, “In times of social unrest, businesses are often caught in the crossfire, facing risks to their operations, employees, and assets.” MTN witnessed this but in a different form. While Nigerians agitated for good governance, the telcos, including MTN Nigeria, were bothered about a deadline from the Nigerian Communications Commission to disconnect all SIMs not linked to NIN by July 31. On July 27 to July 28, the company disconnected millions of unlinked lines, in compliance with the regulator’s directive. This action nearly devastated the company, triggering a swarm of unimaginable issues.
The backlash was swift and brutal. Protesters took to X to express their outrage, with some suggesting that MTN had collaborated with the government to disrupt the protest. Omoyele Sowore, a former Presidential Candidate of the African Action Congress and lifelong activist, even suggested that the protest would commence at MTN offices, implying that the company was complicit in the government’s plans to sabotage the planned protest. The next day, MTN offices were besieged by angry protesters, with the Festac office being destroyed and looted.
While it seemed like it might have been cataclysmic for the company, the Association of Licenced Telecom Operators of Nigeria, and the NNCC came to the rescue, clarifying that MTN was only complying with an industry-wide directive and that the action of the company had nothing to do with the planned protest. To ease off the tension, the NCC mandated telcos to unblock lines that were blocked during the period, allowing for a de-escalation of the tension.
Critical questions come to mind on what MTN could have done differently in the circumstance. Could it have decided not to comply with the regulator’s directive? Perhaps. But this would only strain the relationship with the regulator, with the risk of a fine. It should be added that the company was once fined $5.2 billion for failing to disconnect millions of unregistered lines in the past. In light of this, can anyone blame the company for striving to be compliant, as it has been in recent years, winning the award for Most Compliant Listed Company in Nigeria year after year?
While it is not abnormal to have businesses suffer attacks during civil unrest in Nigeria, as witnessed during the EndSARS protest where many businesses were either vandalised or burnt, the subject of compliance amid civil agitation is a new perspective which has not received sufficient attention by scholars and commentators. This is a gap which needs to be filled in the field of regulatory compliance. The ball is now in the court of the scholars to interrogate the issues for corporates to take learnings. The business community has too much at stake for such a gap to exist.
The recent attack on MTN Nigeria, a company which is vital to Nigeria’s social, digital and economic life, shows that the Nigerian society needs a lot of conscientisation of the people with regard to corporate issues. It appears that the average Nigerian is angry against big businesses, hence they are quick to respond violently, unmindful of the overarching consequences even on themselves and their country. If MTN Nigeria were not a firmly rooted company in Nigeria, the social media attacks launched against the company could have crippled it. Nigeria needs more ‘MTNs,’ to raise its revenue generation, support the economy and ultimately improve the lives of the average Nigerian.
In the midst of civil unrest, regulatory compliance can be a delicate balancing act. To minimise risk, regulators and companies must prioritise clear communication and empathy. In the case of the SIM-NIN linking deadline, the regulator could have considered postponing the deadline to diffuse tension and avoid exacerbating the situation. This would have allowed MTN and other telcos to comply with the directive without inadvertently fuelling the flames of protest. Additionally, the regulator could have proactively clarified the reasons behind the directive, addressing concerns and misconceptions before they escalated into widespread outrage.
As a market leader, MTN Nigeria is becoming synonymous with the sector and hence suffers attacks when there are sectoral issues. These isolated attacks on the company work in favour of competing telcos, raising the question of whether there are forces fuelling the attacks against the company. Whenever there is a general network downtime in the country, such as on the commencement day of the hunger protest, MTN is singled out for heavy backlash, even when other telcos experience similar issues. While the social media attacks on August 1 were not a case of compliance by the telcos, it is pertinent for the public to realise that the digital industry is bound to occasionally encounter network challenges. The telecom operators, such as MTN, Glo, and Airtel, are always at a crossroads as critical and strategic entities in the fabric of the country.
In conclusion, the recent SIM-NIN linking debacle serves as a cautionary tale for regulators and companies operating in tumultuous environments. By prioritising empathy, clear communication, and strategic timing, they can minimise risk and avoid becoming entangled in the web of civil unrest. As Nigeria navigates its current challenges, regulators and companies must learn from this experience, recognising that compliance and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary aspects of responsible business practice.
