As the National Assembly debates the National Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill 2025, technology lawyer and former cybersecurity director Basil Udotai has issued a pointed critique of the draft legislation.
Posting on LinkedIn earlier today, Udotai, a former director of cybersecurity at the Office of National Security Adviser and founder of CreativeAfrica Tech Policy, cautioned that while the Bill represents a major opportunity to modernise Nigeria’s digital legal framework, it is fundamentally flawed in two core respects: it avoids structural convergence and relies on foreign regulatory templates unsuited to Nigeria’s current institutional architecture.
“This Bill represented a chance Nigeria finally had to update the outdated legal structure that supports our digital economy and bring it in line with the converged technologies that now power global digital economies,” Udotai wrote. “The Bill skips this responsibility, leaving the core problem untouched, thus its impact will be tempered compared to countries that have modernised their structures by converging legal and institutional frameworks to align with technological convergence.”
“This Bill represented a chance Nigeria finally had to update the outdated legal structure that supports our digital economy and bring it in line with the converged technologies that now power global digital economies,” Udotai wrote. “The Bill skips this responsibility, leaving the core problem untouched, thus its impact will be tempered compared to countries that have modernised their structures by converging legal and institutional frameworks to align with technological convergence.”
National Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill 2025: The challenge of structural convergence
At the heart of Udotai’s first critique is the continued fragmentation of Nigeria’s regulatory agencies. Telecommunications, broadcasting, and information technology — covering voice, video, and data — increasingly operate on the same networks and systems. Yet Nigeria still regulates these sectors through three distinct bodies:
- Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)
- National Broadcasting Commission (NBC)
- National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA)
“Telecommunications, broadcasting, and information technology already run on the same networks and serve the same market — using the same systems,” Udotai noted. “And yet Nigeria still regulates them through three separate infrastructure agencies. This disjointed approach prevents a cohesive framework for digital governance.”
International examples, Udotai explained, illustrate the importance of structural convergence. Agencies in countries such as the UK (Ofcom), US (FCC), South Korea (KCC), Singapore (IMDA), and India (TRAI) were consolidated or aligned before the enactment of digital-economy laws. “Structural convergence was the prerequisite for success in these jurisdictions,” he said. “Nigeria is attempting to legislate a digital economy without first laying the institutional foundation. That is a recipe for inefficiency and conflict.”
Implications for NITDA and other sector regulators
Udotai also warns that the Bill, by centralising authority in NITDA, may create jurisdictional conflicts. Section 62 grants the agency precedence over “all digital-economy matters,” a move that could clash with NCC, NBC, and other regulatory bodies such as CBN, FCCPC, NAICOM, NDPC, ARCON, and NIMC.
“This arrangement virtually guarantees turf battles,” Udotai wrote. “Without institutional convergence, enforcement will be difficult, if not impossible.” Analysts note that overlapping mandates can delay approvals, reduce compliance, and discourage investment in digital services — outcomes that could undermine Nigeria’s digital transformation goals.
Borrowing foreign templates without local alignment
The second key critique Udotai raised concerns the Bill’s adoption of global regulatory models. According to him, the legislation borrows frameworks from jurisdictions where legal and institutional convergence has already been achieved, yet Nigeria has not yet implemented such alignment.
“The Bill borrows models from jurisdictions where legal and institutional convergence have already been achieved. Without that foundation, those templates will misfit and misrepresent Nigeria’s context,” he wrote.
Udotai argues that implementing foreign templates without adapting them to Nigeria’s existing institutional realities could result in misapplied regulations, operational inefficiencies, and legal ambiguities. Countries with aligned regulatory structures are able to enforce digital-economy laws effectively; without such a foundation, Nigeria risks relegating the Bill to symbolic legislation rather than an instrument of practical change.
Structural convergence and global competitiveness
Modern telecommunications networks, broadcasting, and IT services are increasingly converged, relying on the same infrastructure and serving overlapping markets. Udotai contends that any legislation failing to reflect this reality will struggle to deliver outcomes comparable to global peers.
“Regulating these sectors as if they remain distinct is akin to using separate rules for electricity, water, and gas pipelines that share the same conduit,” Udotai explained. “It creates unnecessary bureaucracy and fails to reflect the operational reality of converged networks.”
By relying on unmodified international templates, the Bill could exacerbate regulatory confusion and compliance difficulties, undermining Nigeria’s efforts to become a regional leader in digital services.
Modern telecommunications networks, broadcasting, and IT services are increasingly converged, relying on the same infrastructure and serving overlapping markets. Udotai contends that any legislation failing to reflect this reality will struggle to deliver outcomes comparable to global peers.
In context: The Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill, 2025
Previous coverage by Technology Times highlighted the government’s intentions with the Bill, including:
- Consolidating digital governance under NITDA
- Promoting digital skills, fintech growth, and secure online services
- Enhancing the regulatory framework for data privacy, cybersecurity, and e-governance
While these aims are broadly supported, Udotai emphasises that without structurally aligned regulators, the Bill risks enforcement conflicts, policy fragmentation, and reduced investor confidence.
“Countries that recognised technological convergence created integrated regulatory frameworks, which allowed them to implement coherent policies, streamline enforcement, and foster innovation,” he said.
Risks of premature legislative passage
Udotai cautions that passing the Bill without first addressing these structural gaps may create a regulatory ecosystem prone to conflict. He stresses that institutional readiness must precede legislative ambition:
“Until we restructure the institutions that will implement the Bill, legislation will be symbolic rather than transformative,” he wrote. “We must speak the language of modern technology in the grammar of modern law — openly, honestly, and structurally.”
By skipping structural convergence, the Bill could see NITDA clashing with NCC, NBC, and other agencies, causing delays in policy implementation and creating uncertainty for businesses seeking regulatory clarity.
Implications for Nigeria’s Digital Economy
Experts argue that streamlined regulatory architecture is essential for Nigeria to realise its digital potential. Effective convergence could:
- Reduce regulatory overlap, lowering operational costs for telecoms and IT operators
- Streamline enforcement, improving compliance
- Facilitate faster adoption of cloud computing, AI, fintech, and e-commerce solutions
- Enhance cybersecurity coordination and accountability
- Increase foreign direct investment (FDI) and strengthen Nigeria’s status as a regional digital hub
“Structural alignment is not just a bureaucratic exercise; it is an enabler of growth,” Udotai emphasises. “It positions Nigeria to compete globally and leverage its status as Africa’s largest digital market.”
Udotai: A call for caution
Udotai’s critique underscores the importance of aligning institutional architecture with technological realities. While the National Digital Economy and e-Governance Bill 2025 represents an opportunity to modernise Nigeria’s digital framework, his analysis suggests that structural and regulatory gaps must be addressed first.
“The National Assembly should not pass the Bill, yet,” he concludes. “We must first do the hard work of aligning our institutions with the converged technologies they are meant to govern. Only then can Nigeria regulate a 21st-century digital economy with the authority, clarity, and effectiveness that the country deserves.”
Home
