 And it's the breakfast and plus TV Africa. Thanks for staying with us this morning. Let's look at the threats by telecommunication companies to withdraw their services due to the debts being owed by banks. However, the Association of Licensed Telecommunication Operators of Nigeria says the accumulated debt from unstructured supplementary service data, that's the USSD, owed to them by banks, rose to 80 billion as of November 2022. And now you're threatening to withdraw your services. Don't forget we are moving towards a cashless society. But this morning we have a guest joining us via Zoom, engineer Ike Nnamani, he's the President Association of Telecommunication Companies of Nigeria at KON. Thank you so much, Dr. Ike Nnamani. I beg your pardon. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Nice to be here with you all. All right then. Let me ask you why is the Association making this threat at this time very critical for economy? You know that we're going cashless with the CBN policy. Why now? It's not a case of making threats. It's just letting the general public know that if something is not done and the payments are not made by the banks, unfortunately the telecom settle may not be able to provide this service anymore. And the reason we're making this known to the general public is at the end of the day, it is the subscribers that may suffer from it. The reason being that this is not an issue that just came up, it's been on for many years now. In 2019 there was, when the debt was still about 32 billion, there was agreement rich in terms of how the banks were to pay it. They ignored that agreement, didn't honor it. In 2021 by this time the debt has risen to about 42 billion. Another agreement was rich that evolved the CBN, the Telecom Regulator NCCC and the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy. At that point we all felt a final arrangement has been reached that will ensure these debts are paid. Unfortunately the banks again have totally ignored the agreement and refused to honor it. And the consequence of that is that the debt have now risen to about 80 billion. And our consign is that with the trend and the way the banks are approaching the issue, there is clearly no means or willingness for them to pay and unfortunately it will simply lead to an inability of the telcos to be able to offer this service. Now two things is important here. The banks already have the money because they've already debited the customers account for this money. So the money is sitting with the bank. We're not asking for something that the banks not already have with them, right? The second one is that there's an agreement that this payment should be made. And for some reason the bank just refused to make the payment. So it's good to pull this in perspective. It's not like we are threatening the industry or the country. We're simply making it known that unfortunately we are running out of the resource to continue providing the service that is meant to be paid for, which for some reason the banks have simply refused to pay. So we understand all of this challenge and all that you have said. This conversation, like you had mentioned earlier, started since 2019. I'm asking why now? Why haven't the... Because we have the ability to provide the service. It costs money to provide the service as you know very well. The TECOM industry has been suffering from all kinds of challenges, lack of access to forest, high costs of operations due to high costs of diesel. It just got to the point where the status quo is not sustainable. Unfortunately that's just the status of the situation. The TECOM industry cannot continue to provide the service when it's not being paid for, especially when the banks are sitting on the money. So do you have an idea why this bank or the banks have refused to remit this money just as you said that they have the money? Our hope and expectation is that with the awareness being created in the general public about this problem, part venture, maybe the next section you should have, we should be with somebody from the banking sector so that they can probably explain to Nigerians why they have willfully refused to pay this debt, right? So we don't know. Only the banks can explain why they willfully refused to pay this debt. So have your association made any efforts? What has the APEX Bank done about this? I'm talking about the CBN. At the end, do you know of the situation? What approach have you taken to ensure that the association ensures that these funds have been remitted by the banks? The agreement that was drawn up, the last one being 2021, had the CBN, had the banks involved, had the TECOM regulator, had the Ministry of Communication, every case that was involved in drawing up that agreement. So they are definitely aware that these payments and the terms for it was agreed and signed up by every party. So it's just a case of one of the parties to the agreement for whatever reason, which, as I said earlier, they're in a better position to explain to the general public, simply refusing to honor the agreement. We all know the state of the country. If you take a facility from any of the banks today and for whatever reason you refuse to pay, they're not going to sit back. They come after you. They see your asset that you pledge as collateral, right? The banks are very aggressive when they seek to recover their money being pulled by the general public. Unfortunately, we don't see the same proactive step by them when they are the ones going to pay their bills and it's most unfortunate because it has a direct impact on the quality of service being offered in the country. Okay. I'm still trying to understand. You say that there are several persons who are part of this agreement and the assumption is that everybody knows, but has the association or your association taken deliberate steps to communicate with these parties who were party to the agreement? Take it from me over and over again. The mask for payment has been escalated to every key stakeholder, including everybody that was involved in drawing up the agreement and we've just got no response. So let's have this conversation now. What will be the implication of the withdrawal of your services on the economy, especially now that we're going cashless? To start with, again, we are hoping it doesn't lead to that, but unfortunately that is where we are headed. If nothing is done, our hope and expectation is if the right things are done, then this can seriously be avoided because to the best of our knowledge, the users of this service have already been debited. So the money is sitting with the banks. It's not like the money is not already with the banks, right? So let's hope it doesn't get to this ultimately, that they are listing and able to do what they need to do. But if they don't, as you clearly know, people will simply notice that the payment channels that are currently available to them are no longer available, right? You'll not be able to do some of the bank transfers you can do on your phone, your mobile money kind of transaction, some of it will cease. And a few other services that makes life covenant and make the financial industry more beneficial to the users will simply not be there. And I'm a little puzzled that the banks are really not taking this seriously, realizing the fact that this is a critical part of their business, right? You would assume that for something that's important to them, that they would take it more seriously than they tend to take. Maybe they've just taken it for granted that the tech home industry would somehow keep offering the service and nobody had to collect it. That's been owed. But unfortunately, we are at that point where currently we don't have the resources to continue supporting this service if not paid for. Well, there's this popular saying that, you know, the judiciary is the hope of the common man. Why haven't you or your association approached, you know, the court of law? Between me and you, it's easier if you can't offer the service, even if the court actually to offer it, you just don't have the ability to. I mean, you're being owed 80. What I'm actually saying is that we are getting to that point where we will not be able to offer that service. We won't have the resources. It costs this system that you use. You have to pay the vendors that supply you that system. And if you can't pay the vendors, you won't get support for it. We are talking about technical support for the platforms that we use to offer the service. We've not been able to pay the vendors because the banks have not paid. It's not a case of going to the court or anything. It's purely a case of inability to offer the service going forward. It's not like we can offer the service and we'll choose not to offer it. We are getting to the point where we simply won't be able to offer the service. And that is why we are trying to raise this call it alarm for the rest of the country to be aware that something is about to happen, which can be addressed at this point. Don't get me wrong. It's not that we will be able to offer the service. They will choose not to offer it. We will simply not be able to offer the service because there will be technical support because the vendors that supply the technology have not been paid. Now, I understand that which you have said, but it's a concern. You say that an agreement was reached and that the agreement has not been respected. Now you're being owed. The banks are owing up to the tune of 80 billion narrow. And I'm saying, is that not worth seeking a redress in a court of competence jurisdiction? I don't think there's any bigger court of jurisdiction than banks simply honoring their adepts. It's as simple as that. People should be honorable enough to pay their adepts, especially when they're in a position to pay it. Okay. We'll leave it at that. Let me also further ask. You have mentioned that the implication would be that users just like myself and yourself as well will not be able to be able to use this services where you transfer funds from one person to another person. What about poachesses? Can people still buy data, pay for different services? Is that also going to be affected? Any of those services that you see the base, like some of the ones you've listed, will be affected. So it's going to cut across the whole chain of services that today people enjoy. And again, why we find this a little puzzling is that the banks are probably the biggest beneficiary of this. This is why they use this service. That is why they use it because it helps bridge the gap between the traditional banking system and the digital economy. And in our society, we are surprised as any other subscriber on the street why the banks are taking this route, knowing how critical this is, not just to the users, but also to the banks themselves. All right. We have to leave it at this. I foresee a situation. From all that you have said, it's probably that we're going back to the stone age. Maybe if you want to buy data or recharge your mobile phone, you have to go back to look for the cards. And this is going to be very dramatic if that happens. But we're hoping that the banks would respond to your consent and relevant quarters would ensure that the common man doesn't suffer because that's where we're heading towards the common man's suffering in 2023. Paraventure that happens. Thank you so much. Okay, go ahead. It's totally avoidable and we hope the banks will do the writing. Again, I repeat, this money is sitting with the banks and they just need to pay it because they've already debited the customers' accounts for this money. I think the banks are just using the money for some other stuff, which is not fair, not fair to the customers, not also fair to the tech cause. And one would just be wondering if there are no other means to get the banks to comply with an agreement. Although you say it's just honorable that if you get into an agreement, you owe a person or an organization, it's just important that you pay up. But however, fingers crossed, let's see how all of this pans out. Thank you so much, engineer E.K. Nnamani for being part of the show this morning. Thank you. Thanks for having me. All right, then. And that's the size of it. We've been speaking with engineer E.K. Nnamani. He's a president association of telecommunication companies of Niger at KON. We do appreciate your time this morning on the show. That's what we ended. We'll return tomorrow with more interesting lineup and conversation. If you missed that on any part of the conversation, it's fine because you can catch up on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. And you can also subscribe to our YouTube channel where at Plus TV Africa and Plus TV Africa Lifestyle. My name is Messier Boko. Have a fantastic Thursday morning.