A significant controversy has erupted in Nigeria’s technology sector, as Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative for Information Technology, has publicly accused the Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity of presenting a fraudulent report regarding the public hearing on the contentious NITDA Bill. Sesan, who represented Paradigm Initiative as a stakeholder at the December 13, 2022 hearing, claims the committee’s report, headed by Senator Yakubu Oseni, deliberately misrepresented the level of support for the bill.

According to the Senate Committee’s report, a majority of the 31 participating stakeholders supported the bill, with 17 in favor and 14 against. However, Gbenga Sesan vehemently refutes this, stating that the reverse is true: 17 stakeholders opposed the bill, while only 14 supported it. He provided specific examples from the report to substantiate his claims of numerical inflation and manipulation.

A closer examination of the committee’s list of supporters reveals suspicious repetitions and inconsistencies. For instance, “Schoola IT Central” and “IT Central” were listed as separate entities, despite “IT Central” not appearing on the comprehensive list of 31 invited stakeholders. Similarly, “Sustainable Initiative for Nurturing Growth (SING)” and “SING Nigeria” were counted as two distinct organizations, with “SING Nigeria” also absent from the official stakeholder roster. A third instance involved “Network of Advocates for Digital Reporting (NADIR)” and “Network of Advocates for Digital Reporting” (without the bracketed acronym), again suggesting intentional duplication rather than clerical error, particularly given the subtle alteration from “SING” to “SING Nigeria.”

Further compounding the irregularities, three organizations, Knowledge House, American Business Council, and Policy Implementation Assisted Forum, were entirely omitted from the committee’s report, despite their participation in the public hearing. Gbenga Sesan claims these three stakeholders actually opposed the bill, suggesting their omission was a deliberate tactic to “balance” the numbers in favor of the bill’s passage.

The integrity of some listed supporters has also been called into question. Sesan pointed out that several organizations in favor of the bill either barely exist, have no clear connection to the bill’s objectives, or have direct ties to the Minister attempting to push the legislation. For example, Schoola, one of the organizations listed as a supporter, confirmed its vote for the bill, but its co-founder also admitted to receiving pivotal growth and acceleration sponsorship from NITDA. This suggests a potential conflict of interest, implying that their support might have been a “payback” rather than an independent assessment of the bill’s merits. Moreover, the inclusion of NGOs such as Youth Against Disaster Initiative, Heroic Discovery and Community Development Centre, Mother’s and Marginalised Advocacy Centre, and Youth and Civil Society Coalition for Development as stakeholders in a tech-focused legislative hearing has raised eyebrows, given that their operations are unlikely to be directly impacted by the bill’s financial burdens or fall under NITDA’s regulatory purview.

The NITDA Bill itself has been a source of continuous controversy since its proposal in 2021. Major players across the ICT sector, from small startups to large tech companies, have expressed strong opposition. Critics argue that the bill transforms NITDA from a developmental agency into a regulatory body — a move they fear will lead to multiple taxation, duplicate existing government oversight, and ultimately stifle the growth of Nigeria’s digital economy. Despite NITDA Director-General Inuwa Kashifu-Abdullai’s assertion that an urgent review of the NITDA Act is necessary for Nigeria to lead Africa’s digital economy, tech stakeholders maintain that the proposed law would be detrimental.

The Senate Committee’s report claimed to have “amended the vexatious clauses of the bill” to address stakeholder fears. However, Gbenga Sesan dismisses these alleged corrections as merely cosmetic, arguing that they were not communicated effectively and failed to address core concerns, particularly the duplication of existing regulatory authorities. He views the attempt to manipulate the process and hastily pass the bill as a major concern.

The swift progression of the NITDA Bill through the legislative process has further intensified these worries. It has already been read for the third time and passed by the Senate, raising serious questions about the diligence of the Senate’s scrutiny. Sesan suggests that senators might have been given “marching orders” to expedite the bill’s passage, leading to errors being overlooked or ignored. Now, the responsibility falls on the Femi Gbajabiamila-led House of Representatives to intervene and prevent this unpopular legislation from reaching the President for assent. Sesan urges the 17 stakeholders who originally opposed the bill, along with other key players in the tech ecosystem, to continue their advocacy efforts, stressing that the alleged corrections were insufficient and that the manipulation of the legislative process is unacceptable.