In 1985, Nigeria restructured its telecommunications and postal services, merging the telecommunications arm of the Post and Telecommunications Department with Nigerian External Telecommunications Limited to form Nigerian Telecommunications Limited, or NITEL. This new state-owned monopoly inherited aging infrastructure, limited network capacity, and inefficient operations, while the postal functions were separated into the Nigerian Postal Service, NIPOST.
At the time, telephone access was highly limited. The installed switching capacity was around 200,000 lines, far below the expected 460,000 lines, and teledensity remained extremely low, with estimates indicating one telephone per 400 persons by the early 1990s. Service was widely regarded as unreliable, with frequent disconnections, maintenance delays, and slow installation times. Most lines were allocated to government offices, businesses, and urban elites, leaving the majority of Nigerians without access.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
David Mark as Minister of Communications
David Alechenu Bonaventure Mark, a retired army officer, served as Minister of Communications under the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida. In this role, he oversaw NITEL and the broader telecommunications infrastructure. Mark was recognised for his disciplined management style, emphasising fiscal accountability and compliance with payment requirements for subscribers, reflecting the government’s concern over NITEL’s financial viability.
While there is a popular narrative attributing the phrase “telephone is not for the poor” to him, no verified primary source, such as a newspaper transcript, official speech, or broadcast recording, confirms that he ever said these words. In 2012, Mark publicly denied having made this statement and challenged anyone to provide evidence of the quote, emphasising that his actual policy focus was on payment compliance rather than social exclusion.
Telecommunications Context in the 1980s
During Mark’s tenure, NITEL faced severe structural and operational challenges. The network relied on outdated copper cables, which were prone to faults and vandalism. Capacity was insufficient to meet growing demand, waiting times for line installation were lengthy, and subscribers often experienced recurring service disruptions. Monthly charges and installation costs were high, effectively limiting access to wealthier individuals and institutions.
These conditions explain why public perception associated NITEL with exclusivity. However, this perception arose from systemic limitations rather than deliberate social policy. The majority of Nigerians were excluded from fixed-line telephony due to infrastructure scarcity, not ministerial directives.
NITEL Challenges and Policy Measures
NITEL struggled with financial shortfalls caused by unpaid subscriptions, inadequate government funding, and operational inefficiencies. As Minister of Communications, David Mark focused on ensuring subscriber payments, supporting measures that improved revenue collection, and overseeing attempts to modernise operations within the limits of available infrastructure.
The company’s workforce was substantial, yet operational challenges and lack of equipment hindered efficiency. No verifiable records exist to suggest that Mark threatened mass retrenchment, or advocated extreme punitive measures for cable theft. These claims remain unverified and are not documented in credible historical sources.
Telecommunications Liberalisation and Expansion
The limitations of NITEL led to eventual reforms and liberalisation. The establishment of the Nigerian Communications Commission in 1992 provided regulatory oversight and laid the foundation for private-sector participation. In the early 2000s, mobile operators such as MTN, Econet, Airtel, and Globacom entered the market, dramatically increasing access to telephony across all income levels.
The introduction of mobile technology bypassed the infrastructure constraints of fixed-line service, enabling millions of Nigerians to access telecommunication services at lower cost and with minimal waiting times. Mobile telephony transformed communication from a privilege of the elite to a service widely accessible to the general population.
Legacy and Historical Significance
While the phrase “telephone is not for the poor” remains part of popular discourse, it should be understood as a metaphor reflecting historical inequalities in access rather than a documented statement. The period under NITEL illustrates the challenges of managing state-owned enterprises, infrastructure scarcity, and the socioeconomic realities of late-20th-century Nigeria.
David Mark’s tenure, within the constraints of a limited, state-owned telecommunications monopoly, highlights both the policy focus on financial discipline and the structural obstacles that prevented equitable access. The eventual liberalisation and growth of mobile telephony underscore the critical role of regulatory reform, private investment, and technological innovation in democratizing access to essential services.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Author’s Note
David Mark’s role as Minister of Communications placed him at the centre of Nigeria’s telecommunications challenges during the late 1980s. NITEL’s inefficiency, low capacity, and service unreliability created a system in which telephony was effectively a privilege for the few. While popular memory attributes controversial statements to Mark, historical documentation confirms only his administrative role and focus on payment compliance and network management. The evolution of telecommunications in Nigeria, from restricted access under NITEL to widespread mobile connectivity, demonstrates how systemic reform and technological innovation can transform essential public services.
Reference:
“Social Media Fights Back: David Mark Backs Down From Controversial Statements”, Sahara Reporters.
