Experts Seek Tougher Enforcement As Fake Phones Flood The Market

Telecommunications industry stakeholders have called on the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to strengthen enforcement against counterfeit and cloned mobile phones, warning that its new device verification system may have limited impact unless importers, distributors and dealers supplying non-compliant devices face appropriate sanctions.

The stakeholders said the commission’s Device Checker, which became operational on October 7, 2026, must go beyond helping consumers identify questionable devices to tracing their sources, investigating violations and holding businesses accountable for introducing such products into the Nigerian market.

They warned that without effective enforcement across the supply chain, consumers could continue to bear the risks of purchasing fake phones, while unscrupulous operators exploit weaknesses in the market to sell counterfeit, cloned and improperly approved devices.

The Device Checker allows consumers to verify the regulatory status of mobile devices through the *315# short code or the commission’s official online portal before completing a purchase.

The initiative comes as smartphones have become essential to banking, electronic payments, business transactions, education and access to public services. The circulation of counterfeit, cloned and non-compliant devices could expose consumers to financial losses, compromise their digital transactions and undermine confidence in Nigeria’s growing digital economy.

The NCC’s type approval requirements are backed by the Nigerian Communications Act 2003 and the Nigerian Communications (Type Approval) Regulations 2024. The new verification system enables consumers to check devices using their International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), a unique identifier assigned to cellular devices.

Under the regulatory framework, manufacturers and importers are expected to ensure that applicable device models obtain the required type approval, while distributors and retailers must comply with relevant verification and licensing requirements.

NCC Registers 231m Devices, Warns Against Unapproved Phones

However, stakeholders said the effectiveness of the initiative would depend on the NCC’s ability to enforce these obligations from importation and distribution to retail sales in major electronics markets and on online platforms.

They further maintained that combining accessible verification with stronger enforcement and proportionate sanctions could improve purchasing confidence, protect legitimate businesses and discourage the supply of fake and cloned phones in Nigeria.

Speaking with LEADERSHIP, Managing Director of McKins Technology Limited, Emmanuel Akinola Akindoyin, described the introduction of the NCC’s *315# Device Checker as a welcome development that could strengthen consumer protection, improve transparency and promote accountability among manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers.

He said Nigeria’s vibrant mobile phone market offered consumers devices across different price categories, from entry-level smartphones to premium flagship models, but buyers often struggled to distinguish genuine, compliant products from counterfeits, cloned devices and equipment that failed to meet regulatory requirements.

“The NCC’s new Device Checker provides a practical way to address part of this problem by allowing consumers to check whether a device model has received the required type approval and whether the individual device has been verified for use on Nigerian mobile networks,” Akindoyin said.

He noted that the initiative was particularly important because purchasing a smartphone represented a significant investment for many Nigerians, some of whom saved for months to acquire a device.

“A customer may save for months to purchase a device, only to discover that it has undisclosed faults, questionable origins or limitations that were not explained at the point of sale,” he said.

According to him, the verification platform could provide an additional layer of confidence by enabling consumers to independently establish a phone’s regulatory status rather than relying solely on sellers’ assurances.

He identified second-hand phones, imported devices and transactions conducted through informal sales channels as areas where independent verification could reduce uncertainty and promote more transparent dealings between buyers and sellers.

However, Akindoyin cautioned against treating every unsuccessful verification as conclusive evidence that a device was counterfeit.

“A genuine phone may also encounter verification problems because of incomplete records, an incorrect IMEI entry or unresolved compliance requirements,” he said, adding that such cases should be distinguished from counterfeiting and deliberate device cloning.

He called for an accessible process through which consumers and legitimate businesses could resolve verification errors, correct records and appeal decisions where necessary.

A counterfeit phone is designed or marketed to imitate a genuine product without authorisation, while a cloned device may use an IMEI assigned to another handset. A genuine device could also fail verification because its records require correction or further investigation.

A technology policy analyst, Tunde Akinwale, said the NCC must ensure that the verification platform leads to investigations and appropriate sanctions against businesses responsible for supplying questionable products.

“A checking platform is useful, but it cannot replace enforcement. If a device fails verification, the regulator must be able to trace its supplier, establish why it failed and take appropriate action where there is evidence of a violation,” he said.

Akinwale called for proportionate but firm sanctions against persistent offenders, alongside clear procedures that would enable legitimate businesses to resolve technical and administrative errors without unnecessary disruption.

He said the commission’s ability to trace questionable devices to their sources and establish responsibility for regulatory breaches would determine whether the initiative could effectively curb the circulation of non-compliant phones.

Without such follow-through, he warned, the system could alert consumers to potential problems without addressing the supply chains through which questionable devices enter the market.

Effective enforcement could also compel importers, distributors and phone dealers to improve stock documentation and verify the origins and regulatory status of products before offering them for sale.

At major electronics markets such as Ikeja Computer Village, retailers may need to pay closer attention to device identifiers, supplier records and evidence of regulatory compliance before completing transactions.

Stakeholders said tougher enforcement could also create a more level playing field for businesses that invest in legitimate supply chains by reducing the competitive advantage enjoyed by operators who disregard applicable requirements.

However, they stressed that implementation must be practical, particularly for small and medium-sized retailers that may require assistance understanding the rules and resolving discrepancies in device records.

A smartphone dealer, John Eze, said the system could improve buyer confidence but warned that retailers needed clear guidance on handling devices whose verification status remained uncertain.

“Customers want to know whether the phone they are buying is genuine and compliant. But when a check fails, traders need a reliable way to establish whether the problem is with the device, its records or the supplier,” he said.

Eze said consumer education would also be critical, particularly for people buying used phones or choosing devices mainly because of their lower prices.

A telecommunications equipment specialist, Engineer Ibrahim Lawal, said the IMEI system could help identify cloned device identities but should not be regarded as a complete physical inspection of a handset.

He explained that a successful verification result did not guarantee that every component, software feature or repair history was genuine. Buyers should still inspect their devices, compare the displayed IMEI with relevant device information and obtain proof of purchase

The distinction underscores the need to treat verification as one component of a broader consumer-protection framework rather than a comprehensive guarantee against every form of mobile phone fraud.

Akindoyin similarly advised consumers to inspect the software and hardware of devices, confirm their condition and obtain receipts from reputable sellers, even where verification is successful.

For consumers who have already purchased devices in good faith, an inconclusive or unsuccessful result should prompt further checks and clarification rather than an immediate conclusion that the phone is fake.

Stakeholders also called for regular public reporting on devices flagged by the system, complaints resolved, investigations conducted and suppliers sanctioned. They said such disclosures would help consumers and legitimate businesses assess whether the initiative was reducing the circulation of counterfeit and non-compliant equipment.

They further urged the NCC to strengthen collaboration with the Nigeria Customs Service, manufacturers, importers, market associations and online platforms to identify and trace questionable products before they reach consumers.

The commission must also ensure that its verification channels remain accessible and reliable, with clear explanations of results and procedures for resolving errors. It has warned users to rely only on its official verification channels and never disclose one-time verification codes to sellers or callers.

Ultimately, stakeholders said the success of the Device Checker should be measured not simply by the number of consumers using the *315# service, but by its ability to improve traceability, strengthen compliance and enable the regulator to take appropriate action against businesses responsible for supplying non-compliant devices.

Akindoyin said the initiative represented an important step towards a more transparent mobile phone market, but its lasting value would depend on accurate verification, fair procedures and effective collaboration among regulators, businesses and consumers.