In April 2024, Musiliu Oseni, Vice Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, announced that “the commission has approved a rate review of 225 naira per kilowatt hour, from a minimum of 68 naira per kilowatt hour… for just 15 % of the customer population in the Nigerian electricity supply industry.”

And, in what now seems to be a setting up for a dunk on the heads of the 1.5 million electricity consumers—which a recent report claims to be 2 million―on Band A tariff plan, Adebayo Adelabu, Minister of Power, assured everyone that the 2024 Budget had provision for N1.8 trillion electricity subsidy.

While delivering this coy body slam to electricity consumers, Adelabu also sneaked in a hint that the tariff may still be reviewed upward before the end of the year, because the Electricity Act provides for review of the electricity tariff two times every year.

And, he tried to justify the need to further raise the tariff in 2024, by enumerating the reasons, which include the rising exchange rate, increasing price of gas, and high cost of maintenance of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure.

It couldn’t have been anything else, it seemed. But he should have also added inappropriate policy choices—of several generations of governments before the current one―and partial sale and commercialisation of electricity generation and electricity distribution companies by the government of President Goodluck Jonathan to crony capitalists, and the retention of the national grid in the hands of bureaucrats.

One major problem is that those who bought the facilities lack the managerial, financial, and technical capabilities to run the companies, even though they regard their more-or-less sinecure equity in those companies as compensation for their less-than-patriotic service to the country.

To borrow and rework a phrase from Bashorun MKO Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993, presidential election that was cruelly annulled by the regime of military President Ibrahim Babangida, “Nigerians held the horns of the cow for the crony capitalists to milk!”

Some observers feel that the minister is probably insisting on raising the tariff because he feels that many consumers rack up high electricity bills. After all, they are usually careless by switching on electrical appliances, like air-conditioners, that they may not necessarily have to use all the time.

Someone asked if the minister takes his own counsel in his office where the electricity bill is paid by the Federal Government, or in his home which may likely be an official quarter.

The minister, who admitted to having given the unsolicited advice to electricity consumers to cultivate what he described as the “culture of managing energy consumption,” has, however, apologised to those who may have been offended by his unsolicited counsel.

NERC has finally come up with the sledgehammer announcement that the government is feeling the weight of about N181.1 billion monthly subsidy bill, and, as a result, electricity tariff would have to be hiked for in Band A, who were promised 20 hours of electricity every day.

And that would, of course, further harm the finances and well-being of these already impoverished consumers who are reeling under the weight of subsidy removal and the floating of the Naira, even though NERC had unilaterally placed them in Band A tariff plan without asking them if they were game for the tariff plan.

What the consumers really need is not the minister’s counsel, but appropriate policies to mitigate their gradually depleting standard of living on top of irregular electricity supply. That is why he was appointed as minister of power. As they say on the streets of Lagos, “The minister should shake a leg!”

Apart from the boast by the minister of power that more than 40 per cent of Nigerians currently receive 20 hours of electricity per day, it is actually too little and insignificant. 100 per cent of Nigerians should be able to get 24 hours supply of electricity every day.

The minister sounded like he expected those Nigerians that he forcibly conscripted into the Band A tariff plan should be grateful for even the irregular electricity supply that they get, a reminder of a former minister of communications who said telephone is not for everybody.

By the way, the minister should stop that nauseating claim that the (less than modest) achievement of the electricity sector is inspired by the Renewed Hope agenda of President Bola Tinubu, a man who has not claimed omnipotence or invincibility.

The current template of the electricity industry can only guarantee shortages and consequent inefficiency that causes the accountant minister to think that inordinately holding down Nigerians for milking by the Gencos, the Transmission Company of Nigeria, and the Discos, is the silver bullet to sorting out the problems of the sector.

One should add, for the umpteenth time, that GenCos, DisCos, and electricity grids that currently operate in silos, should be integrated under one management in each of the markets that have already been demarcated for them.

What this means is that the transmission lines within the Ikeja market, for instance, should be ceded to Ikeja Electric, which will merge with the GenCo which currently uploads electricity to its market. All three components of electricity supply should be under one roof in each market.

If the Minister is not too sure of the expediency of this model being suggested, he could seek clarification from experts, amongst which should be Professor Barth Nnaji, who is possibly Nigeria’s most illustrious minister of power.

The gentleman is a thoroughbred professional who understands the technical demands and the dynamics of the ecosystem of the electricity system. When he was minister of power, electricity supply was very regular.

This matter should be treated expeditiously like that of the man who appeared in a dream to entreat Apostle Paul to “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” Like Paul, Prof Nnaji would likely come to help Nigeria overcome the electricity sector debacle.

It is not fair for the electricity tariff to be raised by about 330 per cent, from N68 to N225 per kilowatt hour, for Band A tariff plan customers in April and to now start hinting at another hike in less than six months, even if the law provides that tariffs can be reviewed two times in one year.

If the government goes ahead with this wicked intention, it may well be the final straw that would break the camel’s back. It will further impoverish the disappearing Nigerian middle class that is barely coping with 34 per cent inflation and they may be easily persuaded to join the lumpen plebeian proletariat as they embark on street protests.

This won’t bode well for a government that came into office with roughly one-third of the votes of less than one-fourth of the electorate. That should not be the testimony of a government that is committed to Section 14 of the Constitution which sets the security and welfare of the citizens as the primary responsibility of the government.

The minister of power needs to understand that inappropriate and ineffectual government policies are the major causes of the inability of the electricity sector to deliver regular electricity to Nigerian citizens at an affordable tariff rate. No other reason.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will depart Abuja today for the United Kingdom to begin a two-week vacation, part of his yearly leave.

He will use the two weeks as a working vacation and a retreat to reflect on his administration's economic reforms.

He will return to the country after the leave expires.

Bayo Onanuga

Special Adviser to the President

(Information & Strategy)

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) have informed the Federal High Court Abuja about their respective positions on Pay-Per-View subscription requests against Multichoice Nigeria products, GOtv and DStv.

Multichoice Nigeria Limited had asked the court in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/563/2024 to refuse a plaintiff application seeking to compel it to meter its GOtv and DStv decoders to read customers’ subscriptions only per view or during viewing.

FCCPC and NBC were drawn into the fresh legal dispute by Maduabuchi O. Idam Esq, who sought an order compelling the FCCPC, NBC, and the Attorney General of the Federation to direct every TV network provider in Nigeria to regulate or meter their subscriptions to read per view or during viewing and to roll over unused subscriptions after the expiration of the subscription duration.

Customer/Multichoice Contention 

In the suit, the claimant also seeks an order compelling Multichoice to roll over unused subscriptions upon expiration for Idam and other Nigerian customers, allowing them to maximize their investment in its products.

In this latest suit, Idam alleges that GOtv subscriptions, for instance, are not metered and do not account for viewing time; instead, customers are disconnected from service upon the expiration of their subscription, regardless of usage.

Idam states that apart from the alleged arbitrary price hikes that took effect in May 2024, Multichoice does not allow customers to roll over unused subscriptions, preventing them from fully utilizing their purchased services, citing this development as oppressive.

Multichoice denies the allegations of customer oppression, drawing the court’s attention to prior clarifications from Multichoice and other pay-TV operators during meetings with the NBC regarding the feasibility of the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) model, stating that it is not commercially or technically viable in satellite broadcasting due to current technological limitations.

“PAYG has been investigated several times by the National Assembly. In the 8th Assembly, the House Committee on Information, National Orientation, Ethics, and Values, led by Hon. Olusegun Odebunmi, found that allegations of exorbitant Pay-TV subscription charges against Multichoice and the GOtv license holder were unsubstantiated and that the PAYG model is not technically or commercially feasible in the broadcast industry,” Multichoice stated.

What FCCPC Is Saying 

In FCCPC’s counter affidavit dated August 16, 2024, and exclusively seen by Nairametrics, Mr. Adedeji Bankole, an officer in the Department of Legal Services of the Commission, countered the claimant’s submission, maintaining that most of the allegations regarding its Pay-Per-View request are incorrect.

Bankole stressed that the FCCPC’s mandate focuses on promoting competition and protecting consumers, but it does not directly regulate how businesses should be run.

He stated that while the FCCPC sets guidelines and enforces laws related to competition and consumer protection, it does not dictate how businesses should be operated or managed.

“The FCCPC is not in any position to direct or compel Multichoice to regulate or meter their subscriptions to read per view or during viewing and to roll over unused subscriptions after the expiration of the subscription duration,” he stated.

He added that the FCCPC has investigated Multichoice several times before and that other subscribers/consumers have taken Multichoice to court in the past over increases in tariffs, and several of those cases are now on appeal.

NBC’s Position 

Still on the matter, Odoeme N.V., representing the NBC, submitted to the court that it received a complaint from the plaintiff dated September 20, 2023, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of Multichoice TV.

In response to the complaint, it set up a committee to investigate the matter concerning requests for Pay-Per-View, among others.

He stated that Multichoice, through their letters dated October 30, 2023, and April 23, 2024, informed the NBC of their intention to increase the subscription fee.

He continued that the NBC, in its letters dated November 7, 2023, and April 30, 2024, urged and directed Multichoice to suspend the increase while inviting the pay-TV provider for a meeting for further discussion.

“But Multichoice did not honor the invitation. The NBC, on September 28, 2023, wrote to Multichoice to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint, but Multichoice did not respond or make any representation,” he added.

He explained that before the committee established to investigate the plaintiff’s complaint against Multichoice concluded its assignment, the Federal High Court Abuja delivered a judgment declaring that the NBC, not being either the Nigerian Police or the court, does not have the power to investigate or sanction.

The NBC said it is bound by the judgment of the court and cannot presently attend to any complaint against Multichoice for now.

“This judgment forestalled the implementation of the (NBC)committee’s findings. Owing to the said judgment, the NBC could not take any action in sanctioning or giving directives to Multichoice regarding the plaintiff’s complaint,” the NBC stated in its submission, seen by Nairametrics.

Nairametrics has gathered that the court has scheduled December 5, 2024, for a hearing on this legal dispute.

What You Should Know 

Nairametrics reports that Multichoice has faced accusations of exploiting Nigerian customers.

Over the years, the Pay-TV provider has been scrutinized by lawmakers and consumer protection tribunals over its pricing practices.

The hearing follows the Nigerian Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal’s decision on July 12, 2024, granting a request from lawyer Festus Onifade to withdraw his case against Multichoice Nigeria concerning a price hike of GOtv and DStv subscriptions.

Initially, the tribunal fined Multichoice 150 million naira and mandated a one-month free subscription for violating interim orders, but Multichoice appealed and filed for a stay of proceedings.

The tribunal rescheduled the case to November, but Onifade chose to withdraw the suit, which the tribunal approved without awarding costs.

Multichoice announced new price adjustments for DStv and GOtv packages on Wednesday, April 24, 2024. An email to subscribers stated, “On Wednesday, May 1, 2024, we will adjust our prices across all our packages on DStv and GOtv. We understand the impact this change may have on you—our valued customer—but the rise in the cost of business operations has led us to make this difficult decision. It remains our mission to provide the best entertainment and viewing experience to you, and we are committed to continuing to deliver high-quality content and unparalleled service.”

[Nairametrics]

In the Holy Scriptures, Samuel, the revered prophet and leader, stood before the people of Israel and issued a bold challenge. He invited them to bring forth any evidence of his wrongdoing. “Here I am,” he said. “Testify against me in the presence of the Lord and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed?” (1 Samuel 12:3). It was an extraordinary act of courage and integrity, a leader holding himself accountable to the very people he led, daring them to find fault in his governance. Unsurprisingly, the people responded: “You have not defrauded or oppressed us.”

Fast forward to contemporary Nigeria, a country with a rich history of leadership, but one also plagued by the recurring issue of corruption. Nasir El-Rufai, former governor of Kaduna State, recently made a similar declaration to Samuel’s. He proclaimed to Nigerians that throughout his tenure as governor, he had never stolen public funds. El-Rufai, in the same spirit of boldness, invited scrutiny, challenging anyone with evidence to come forward. It was a rare but commendable act in Nigerian politics, a leader opening himself to public judgment with a clean conscience. But can we say the same for other former governors, presidents, and public officials?

Nigeria, often referred to as the “Giant of Africa,” is a country blessed with immense resources. Its people, resilient and industrious, have continued to thrive despite the frequent political mismanagement that has characterized the nation’s leadership. Time and again, the media is flooded with reports of former governors, ministers, presidents, and even lawmakers implicated in corrupt practices. These range from the looting of state coffers to gross mismanagement of funds meant for the development of public infrastructure.

The consequences of such corrupt leadership are all too clear. Nigeria’s roads are deplorable, healthcare is in shambles, the education sector is underfunded, and unemployment continues to skyrocket. Meanwhile, these leaders, past and present, often live in lavish luxury, far removed from the suffering of the common man.

Yet, even in the face of these damning realities, very few Nigerian leaders have come forward with the kind of transparency Samuel demonstrated, or the forthrightness shown by El-Rufai. This raises a critical question: Can any of Nigeria’s past governors or presidents stand before the people, as Samuel did, and say, “I have not stolen. I have not oppressed”? Can they invite scrutiny and confidently state that their hands are clean?

The issue of corruption in Nigeria is not new. From the oil boom of the 1970s to the present day, corruption has been a persistent challenge. Countless investigative reports have revealed the looting of public funds by government officials, many of whom are former governors or presidents. Several of these leaders, after leaving office, have faced investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), with varying degrees of success in holding them accountable.

But despite the many cases of alleged corruption, only a handful of former leaders have ever voluntarily subjected themselves to the kind of public accountability we saw with Samuel and, more recently, El-Rufai. Most prefer to hide behind the veil of political immunity or manipulate the system to avoid prosecution.

El-Rufai’s challenge to the Nigerian public is a rare example. He invited anyone with evidence of wrongdoing to step forward, confident that his governance record would stand the test. This challenge should be extended to all former governors and presidents. It is time for them to face the people and account for their time in office. After all, they were elected or appointed to serve, not to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses.

Imagine the profound impact it would have on the nation’s moral fabric if every former governor, president, or public official were required to publicly declare their assets and account for the decisions they made while in office. Imagine the change in public perception if leaders openly invited investigations into their financial dealings, as a demonstration of their integrity and commitment to transparency. It would signify a new era in Nigerian politics, one where integrity and accountability become the norm rather than the exception.

Unfortunately, the silence of many former leaders continues to cast a long shadow over Nigerian politics. While Samuel could proudly challenge his people to prove he had stolen from them, the vast majority of Nigerian leaders cannot do the same. The allegations of corruption, whether founded or unfounded, persist because these leaders have never cleared the air. They remain silent, refusing to open their records for public scrutiny, leaving room for speculation and distrust.

This silence is not without consequence. The enduring lack of accountability erodes public trust in governance, making it difficult for even genuinely honest leaders to gain the confidence of the people. As a result, the Nigerian populace has become increasingly disillusioned, often viewing politicians as self-serving individuals who prioritize personal wealth over public welfare.

The silence also encourages the younger generation of politicians to adopt similar behaviors, knowing that they, too, can enrich themselves without facing significant consequences. This creates a vicious cycle in which corruption becomes entrenched, and the political class continues to operate with impunity.

Nigerians deserve better. They deserve leaders who are willing to be held accountable, who understand that public service is not a path to personal enrichment but a sacred duty to the people. It is time for all former governors and presidents to take a page from Samuel’s book, and from El-Rufai’s, by stepping forward to declare their innocence or face the consequences of their silence.

Accountability should not be a foreign concept in Nigerian politics. It is a fundamental requirement of leadership. If a leader cannot account for their actions while in office, how can they claim to have served the people faithfully? How can they lay any legitimate claim to the title of “leader”?

To effect real change in Nigeria, there must be a collective effort to instill transparency and accountability into the political culture. This will require not only the willingness of leaders to submit themselves to public scrutiny but also the establishment of institutions that can effectively carry out such oversight.

The role of civil society organizations, investigative journalists, and anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC and ICPC cannot be overstated. These groups must be empowered to hold all former and current leaders accountable, ensuring that no one is above the law. Equally, the Nigerian public must continue to demand transparency from their leaders, refusing to accept anything less than full accountability.

The challenge has been laid before all former governors and presidents in Nigeria: come forward, as Samuel did, and declare before the people that you never stole, that you governed with integrity, and that your hands are clean. If you cannot, then perhaps it is time to reflect on the cost of your silence and the damage it continues to inflict on the nation.

Nigeria needs leaders who can confidently stand before the people and say, “I have not defrauded or oppressed you.” Anything less is an insult to the very notion of leadership. It is time for a new era of accountability, one where leaders prove their worth not by their wealth, but by their integrity.

The National Examinations Council, NECO, has said candidates would pay a N50,000 fee to reprint their certificates.

Disclosing this in Minna, Niger State, the Registrar of NECO, Dantani Wushishi, said the fee is subject to periodic review.

In a statement he signed, Wushishi said: “The N50,000 fee for certificate reprints is subject to periodic review.”

NECO said requests for reprints “will only be accepted within one year of the original certificate issuance”.

“After this period, the council will no longer entertain such requests,” he added.

The Council also set a one-month deadline for candidates to submit requests for the correction of results.

[DailyPost]