News

Tariff war; FG intervenes as states, Discos’ rift deepens

Published

10 months ago

August 29, 2025

As s the crisis between states and electricity distribution companies continues to degenerate over who has the power to fix electricity tariffs, the Federal Government, through the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, has summoned all the stakeholders to a meeting scheduled for next week.

Energy commissioners of state governments, under their umbrella body known as the Forum of Commissioners for Power and Energy in Nigeria, have repeatedly insisted that the Electricity Act, 2023 (Amended), has empowered state governments to regulate their respective power markets.

But power distribution companies, under the aegis of the Association of Nigerian Electricity Distributors, insisted that, although the Act enabled the states to regulate their power markets, the state governments lack the power to put a price on cross-border electricity.

As a result of this, neither the states nor the Discos are ready to shift ground over who has the authority to regulate electricity tariffs. As state regulators make moves to design tariffs for the electricity markets in their domains, starting with Enugu State, power distribution companies declared that this cannot work.

The tariff ordered by the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission recently also sparked the reactions of power generation companies, including the Niger Delta Power Holding Company, as the Gencos argued that states have no power to dictate the cost of power from the national grid.

To de-escalate the situation, the national regulator, NERC, has invited all the actors involved in the imbroglio to a meeting scheduled to be held next week in Lagos, as the Discos declared again on Thursday that the states should not destroy the power sector with the quest to regulate electricity tariffs.

The General Manager of Public Affairs at NERC, Dr Usman Abba-Arabi, told one of our correspondents in an interview on Thursday that the meeting would discuss the matters and proffer solutions to them.

The NERC spokesman maintained that invitations have been sent to the state regulatory commissions, the distribution companies, and other stakeholders in the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry.

“The next Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry stakeholders meeting is scheduled for next week in Lagos. State Regulatory Commissions have been invited to attend. The Discos and other industry players will all be in attendance. It’s a forum where industry issues will be discussed and solutions proffered,” he stated.

Abba-Arabi stated that the meeting is purely for the industry and would be done without the attention of the press.

Discos talk tough

The crisis between the Discos and state governments started in July when the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission announced that it had slashed the Band A tariff from N209 per kilowatt-hour to N160/kWh, ordering MainPower Electricity Distribution Limited to implement this from August 1, 2025.

As the new tariff regime began on the stated date, MainPower’s energy supplier, the Enugu Electricity Distribution Company, had to cut supply to Enugu by 50 per cent, leaving many customers in darkness. MainPower explained that EEDC had calculated that implementing the tariff cut would lead to monthly losses exceeding N1bn, undermining its obligations to the market.

Reacting to the development during an interview with one of our correspondents on Thursday, the Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Nigerian Electricity Distributors, Sunday Oduntan, warned states and their newly established regulatory agencies not to destroy the power sector.

Oduntan, who is also the spokesman of the Discos, argued that what the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission was planning would not work, saying it was an attempt to draw back the sector. According to him, the Electricity Act, 2023 (Amended), allows the states to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity within their respective states, but does not give them the power to put a price on cross-border electricity from the national grid.

He said states would only control electricity tariffs when they start generating, transmitting, and distributing the same. He accused the EERC of having plans to regulate the cost of a product that does not belong to the state regulator.

“The Electricity Act, 2023 (Amended), allows the states to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity within their respective states. That is just the summary of that law. It is to enable them to take care of their own electricity issues. Now, what happened in Enugu was that the electricity regulatory commission in the state wanted to control the price of a product that does not belong to them.

“Let me explain what I mean: if they generate electricity in Enugu State, and they transmit and distribute it within Enugu State, they have the right to fix the price. But the law is very clear: they are not in charge of cross-border tariffs. What do I mean by cross-border tariffs? This is a product that has crossed outside the borders of your state, for instance, from the national grid.

“So, you cannot put a price on such a product. That product has a cost of production. That is what they were seeking to do, and they are just shooting themselves in the foot; it is not going to work! You can control your electricity, not the electricity that belongs to another person,” Oduntan insisted.

He warned that the power sector would collapse if electricity was sold below the cost of production. He stressed that if the states failed to listen to other stakeholders on the issue, they would only pull down the sector.

“So, when the regulator in the state says the Disco there should sell at a lower price, the question to be asked is this: ‘Is that price below the cost price?’ If it is below the cost price, then the company will collapse. So, it won’t work. They cannot do it. If they insist, then they will destroy the power sector,” he said.

Oduntan added that Enugu could generate power from coal and transmit and distribute it at no cost to the consumers as palliatives, but not the energy from the grid. “They (Enugu) can generate from coal, transmit and distribute it, and can even give it out as palliatives or free of charge to their residents. But not for energy that comes from outside their borders. That is the point. Cross-border tariffs are not in their hands,” he insisted.

States respond

Meanwhile, the Forum of Commissioners for Power and Energy in Nigeria said it is only concerned about issues that could push the power sector forward. The Chairman of FOCPEN and Commissioner of Power and Renewable Energy in Cross River State, Prince Eka Williams, said the forum would not banter words with the Discos, saying, “We are not in a war.”

According to him, the forum is more concerned about the efforts being made to light up every home in Nigeria. He said the forum will work with other stakeholders to proffer solutions to the challenges in the energy sector, saying he would not comment on what Oduntan said.

After complaints of blackouts and vending glitches, MainPower restored power to Enugu residents, but at the old cost. The Disco ignored the new tariff order that slashed the Band A tariff to charge N209/kWh. Electricity customers in the state said they now pay the old rate after power was restored by MainPower.

However, the EERC kicked against this. It accused MainPower of tariff breach while threatening sanctions. In a public notice, the commission stated that it has come to its attention that Mainpower Electricity Distribution Company Limited has reverted to charging its Band A customers N209.50/kWh, as against the commission’s order of 160.40/kWh.

The commission expressed displeasure that “this violation” persists despite prior directives from the commission mandating strict compliance with the tariff order. “Such actions constitute a breach of the Tariff Order by Mainpower Electricity Distribution Limited,” the commission said, urging Band A customers in Enugu State to report overbilling.

“Band A customers who have been billed above the approved rate are urged to report the discrepancy to the commission with evidence of the breach for necessary regulatory action, which may involve imposing appropriate sanctions on MainPower,” the EERC warned.

Recall that NERC had earlier told the Enugu regulator that any state that wanted to slash tariffs should be ready to pay the shortfall. “As states do not have jurisdiction over the national grid and over electric power stations established under federal laws/operating under licences issued by the commission, they must holistically incorporate the wholesale costs of grid supply to their states without any qualification or deviation in their design of tariffs for end-use customers in order not to distort the dynamics of the market or be prepared to make a policy intervention by way of a subsidy for any deviation in the tariff structure that distorts the wholesale generation, transmission and legacy financing costs in the Nigeria Electricity Supply Industry,” NERC said in July.

But Enugu and other states disagreed with claims by NERC that sub-national entities cannot fix electricity tariffs because they do not generate and transmit electricity. The Special Adviser to the Enugu Governor on Power, Joe Aneke, said states have the power to design tariffs as far as distribution is concerned.

Aneke said the new tariff by the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission did not tamper with the costs of generation and transmission, saying it based its calculations on distribution only.

The Forum of Commissioners for Power and Energy in Nigeria said in a statement that NERC does not have overriding regulatory authority over electricity distribution and tariff setting, noting that the fifth constitutional alteration and the 2023 Act give states exclusive jurisdiction over electricity distribution, whether connected to the national grid or not, emphasising the power of states to adjust tariffs.

Aneke clarified that the EERC’s new tariff would not distort the electricity market because it did not affect generation and transmission. “It’s possible to reduce tariffs, and on the other hand, it’s equally possible to increase them, but these are subject to facts, figures, and numbers. Why am I saying so? Recall that the subnationals do not regulate generation. And in this tariff determination, which Enugu did, the cost of generation was not tampered with at all. It still stays as it is because we know we don’t regulate generation, and we don’t regulate transmission. That is the work of NERC. None of those costs were touched.

“So, why is it not possible for state regulatory commissions to fix tariffs, having been given the law, having the power, having the numbers, and having jaw-jawed with the subcos, with their figures on the table? Let me go to the granular. Everybody here appreciates the fact that there are certain variables and costs that are used or considered before tariffs are determined. If these figures are laid bare, you see that some are not realistic, just to avoid using certain words, and some cannot be sustained. The argument of the presentation cannot be sustained,” Aneke said.

Giving an example, he said MainPower claimed a sum of N9bn for recovery, but the figure was not up to that.

“For instance, a lump sum that was presented at about N9bn. When we got into the nitty-gritty, we looked at the facts, the figures, the numbers, the customer numbers, and the so-called lifeline. We have now discovered that what they presented wasn’t correct. They tacitly understood that and accepted it,” he said.

However, MainPower, in a petition to the commission, said the tariff order published on July 18 was not agreed upon by the parties and that the same did not comply with Regulation No. EERC/R004.

The Disco averred that Section 4.1(c) provides that “in order to avoid ‘gold-plating’ in the tariff using rate of return regulation, the licensee shall be required to review costs with the commission. It is the cost agreed with the commission that shall be allowed for the operator to use in the tariff model for the determination of the price that shall apply in contracts.

“This is because the value chain of the electricity business in Enugu State shall be subject to contracts, and prices shall be determined based on the applicable methodology published by the commission on its website. The review process for the cost shall be as prescribed in the Schedules to these Regulations.”

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 727

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

5 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Newsbreak365_Admin

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 35

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

6 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Newsbreak365_Admin

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 45

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

9 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Oluwagbenga Olaoye

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 24