A CRITIQUE OF SECTION 136 (1) OF THE NIGERIAN COMMUNICATIONS ACT (NCA), NO19 2003, AS A CONTRADICTION TOTHE DOCTRINE OF ASSAULT AND DUTY OF CARE IN LAW.*1

Abstract

Efforts have been made over the centuries not to assign criminal blame, liability or responsibility tofictional entities.The law acknowledges that corporations as well as individuals persons are capable of inflicting harm on othersintentionally or otherwise either in the course of corporate activities or daily relationships. Consequently, with anincrease in the rate of serious hazardous corporate  activities  often  times    resulting    in the violation  of  rights,  loss  of  lives,  property  and public  funds  the  need  to  fix  strict  criminal  responsibilityon  corporations has  become  a  legal concern.Therefore,effortsshould  be  made  to  discourage  any  legislation  that  encourages  the infliction  of  harm  on  individuals,no  matter  how  minimal. Section  136of  theNigerian Communications  Act(NCA),  No.19  2003 is one  of  such  legislations.  Itempowers a  licensee,in installing  its  network  facilities, to take  all  reasonable  steps  to  ensure  that  he  causes  as  little detriment  and  inconvenience,  and  does  as  little  damage,  as  is  practicable.This  is  rather  a paradox tothe doctrineof duty of care known to our laws and the law prohibiting assault. The concern  of  this  paper  is to  examine  whether the  Nigerian  telecommunications  industry,  by  the provision of Section 136 (1) of the Nigerian Communications Act(NCA)2003,enjoysimmunity over industrial activities amounting to assault. Itwillfurther discussthe extentto which the said Section  136  (1)  of  the  Nigerian  Communications  Act (NCA) contradicts  the  doctrine  of  assault and duty of care under corporate criminal responsibility.