Connect with us

Business

Electricity subsidy: FG to deduct N3.6tn from Federation Account

Published

on

The Federal Government has proposed a N3.6tn deduction from the Federation Account to fund electricity subsidies in 2026, 2027, and 2028, a move designed to distribute the financial burden across federal, state, and local governments, The PUNCH reports.

The move represents a decisive step by the Federal Government to confront the rapidly mounting electricity subsidy debt, which has severely constrained liquidity across the power sector, while also strengthening fiscal transparency by making subsidy obligations explicit and better accounted for.

The deduction proposal, detailed in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework Fiscal Strategy Paper for 2026–2028, analysed by one of our correspondents on Tuesday, reflects a strategic shift toward distributing the financial burden of the power sector across all tiers of government, amid growing concerns over unsustainable debts and systemic inefficiencies.

According to Table 6.2 of the MTEF document, which outlines “Other FAAC Deductions” under the Federation Account Revenue – Main Pool, VAT, and Stamp Duty, the electricity subsidy for 2026 is pegged at N1.2tn.

It is projected to remain at this level through 2027 and 2028, signalling the government’s commitment to stabilising the sector while preventing hidden liabilities from ballooning into a fiscal crisis.

“The document read, “Transfer to NBET (Electricity Subsidy) is estimated at N1.2tn in the 2026 budget proposal and projected to remain at N1.2tn each in 2027 and 2028.”

The proposed approach aligns with earlier statements by the Budget Office of the Federation, which indicated plans to end the practice of the Federal Government bearing electricity subsidy costs alone.

The Budget Office DG, Tanimu Yakubu, during a training and sensitisation workshop for ministries, departments, and agencies on the 2026 post-budget preparation process using the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System Budget Preparation Sub-System, said President Bola Tinubu had directed that electricity subsidy costs be made explicit, tracked, and fairly shared across tiers of government.

“If we want a stable power sector, we must pay for the choices we make,” he said. “When tariffs are held below cost, a gap is created. That gap is a subsidy. And a subsidy is a bill.”

He added that from 2026, the Federal Government would no longer treat electricity subsidies as an open-ended obligation borne solely by the centre, especially where policy decisions and political benefits are shared.

“In 2026, we will stop pretending that this bill can be left to the Federal Government alone, especially where the policy choice or the political benefit is shared across tiers of government,” Yakubu said.

According to him, the President has instructed that the existing electricity sector legal framework be invoked to ensure that subsidy sharing is practical, transparent, and enforceable.

“This means subsidy costs must be explicit, tracked, and funded, so they do not return as arrears, liquidity crises, or hidden liabilities in the market,” he said. “If any tier of government chooses affordability interventions, the funding responsibilities must be clear, agreed, and enforceable,” he stated.

Currently, the Federal Government finances electricity subsidies through direct budgetary allocations, primarily channelled via the Federal Ministry of Finance to the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc.

See also  Tinubu approves commercial oil drilling in Ogun

NBET acts as an intermediary, purchasing electricity from generation companies (GenCos) and selling it to distribution companies (DisCos) at regulated tariffs, often lower than the actual cost of production.

The gap between the regulated tariff and the cost of electricity generation is effectively covered by government subsidies, which are meant to shield consumers from the full cost of electricity while maintaining stability in the power market.

However, this subsidy framework has placed a growing strain on federal finances, and accumulating unpaid obligations has caused a drastic increase in sector debt.

By the end of 2025, total outstanding sector debt, including unpaid obligations to generation and other power companies, is projected to rise to about N6.5tn, up from around N4tn earlier in the year, as a result of unfunded subsidy shortfalls and low payments to power producers.

This has prompted the proposed 2026 measure to deduct N1.2tn directly from the Federation Account for electricity subsidies, which aims to make payments explicit, transparent, and shared among federal, state, and local governments, a strategy intended to address both fiscal sustainability and operational efficiency in NESI.

By deducting funds directly from the Federation Account, the central revenue pool managed by the Federation Account Allocation Committee before revenue distribution, the government aims to encourage states and local governments to prioritise efficiency and provide targeted support for vulnerable households.

Providing further insight into the Federal Government’s proposed electricity subsidy funding framework, energy policy expert Habu Sadeik explained that the N1.2tn earmarked in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and Fiscal Strategy Paper will be deducted directly from the Federation Account Allocation Committee pool before revenues are shared among the three tiers of government.

According to Sadeik, the MTEF document clearly captures the N1.2tn electricity subsidy as a first-line deduction from gross FAAC revenue, meaning the amount will be removed before distributable revenue is calculated for the Federal Government, states, and Local Governments.

He explained that the MTEF-FSP, which is prepared every three years, sets the strategic direction for government budgeting and spending across the federation, including how revenues are shared and which obligations are treated as priority deductions.

“What the government has done is to provide for a deduction at source from the gross FAAC revenue to the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc (NBET) amounting to N1.2tn,” Sadeik said.

He noted that the approach is similar to the funding structure adopted for the Presidential Metering Initiative, under which about N800bn has been carved out from FAAC over time to fund nationwide metering, thereby reducing estimated billing and commercial losses in the power sector.

Under the new electricity subsidy framework, Sadeik explained, any deduction made from the gross FAAC pool effectively reduces what states and local governments eventually receive.

“For example, if total FAAC revenue in a particular month is N1tn and N200bn is deducted upfront, it means every state and local government has indirectly contributed to that N200bn,” he said.

He clarified that the proposed N1.2tn is not an ad-hoc payment but a planned transfer to NBET beginning in 2026, to be executed before revenue is distributed to sub-national governments.

See also  SEC creates insurance recapitalisation desk, pledges 14-day approval

“This money is planned to be paid to NBET ahead of distribution. It is no longer something the Federal Government will try to settle later through its own budget,” Sadeik explained.

Historically, electricity subsidies have been funded solely through federal budgetary allocations, placing the full burden on the Federal Government. However, Sadeik noted that the new arrangement represents a fundamental shift in responsibility.

“The key difference is the burden,” he said. “Before now, the burden of electricity subsidy was on the Federal Government alone. Under this new framework, the burden is shared by the entire federation, the Federal Government, states, and Local Governments.”

He added that previous budgetary provisions for electricity subsidies were grossly inadequate when compared with the scale of liabilities in the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry.

“In 2024, only about N450bn was provided in the budget. In 2025, it increased to N900bn, but these amounts were still far below the level of accumulated subsidy obligations,” he said.

The planned FAAC deduction, according to Sadeik, is intended to close this funding gap by making subsidy payments explicit, predictable, and sustainably funded, while ending the long-standing practice of masking electricity subsidies within federal fiscal operations.

Commenting on the proposal, the Executive Director and Convener of PowerUp Nigeria, Adetayo Adegbemle, applauded the initiative, describing it as consistent with the principles of federalism.

Adegbemle said the arrangement reflects a system in which all federating units actively participate in governance, noting that the Federal Government, states, and local governments would collectively contribute to the cost of electricity subsidies.

“This is in the spirit of federalism, where all federating units are involved in government. Under this arrangement, the Federal Government, the states, and the local governments will all contribute to the payment of electricity subsidy,” he said.

While noting that the full implementation details were still unclear, Adegbemle described the proposal as a positive development that allows all tiers of government to share responsibility for the power sector.

“I don’t know if the government has already worked out all the details, but this is a good development because all levels of government can come in and make their own contributions,” he added.

He explained that the policy would apply mainly to states that have yet to establish their own electricity markets under the amended Electricity Act. “As earlier mentioned, this will involve all states that have not created their state electricity markets. States that have already set up functional local electricity markets will be exempted,” Adegbemle said.

Although he reiterated his long-standing position that electricity subsidies should ideally be phased out completely, Adegbemle noted that the proposed framework would significantly ease the financial burden on the Federal Government while improving accountability across the sector.

“Even though some of us have advocated for the complete removal of the electricity subsidy, this move will drastically reduce the burden on the Federal Government and also bring more accountability,” he said.

According to him, shared responsibility would compel each tier of government to properly audit its electricity customer base and closely monitor connections to the national grid, thereby reducing inefficiencies and revenue leakages in the power sector.

See also  Shettima urges respect for Dangote’s investment to protect Nigeria’s future

“This will force every level of government to take responsibility for auditing their customer base and their connections to the national grid,” he added.

Ministry backs moves

When contacted, the Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, speaking through his media aide, Bolaji Tunji, said the ministry supports the proposed electricity subsidy funding framework, describing it as a step in the right direction for the power sector.

He explained that while the announcement was made by the Director-General of the Budget Office, the Ministry of Power aligns with the initiative and agrees with its underlying objectives.

“This announcement was made by the Director-General of the Budget Office, and his office should be contacted for further clarification on the implementation strategy. However, we agree with him on this,” Tunji said.

The implications of the proposed N1.2tn FAAC deduction for electricity subsidies are significant for state and local governments.

Under the current FAAC revenue-sharing formula, states are entitled to 26.72 per cent of the Main Pool, while local governments receive 20.60 per cent. With projected FAAC revenue for 2026 at about N41.06tn, this would translate to roughly N10.97tn for states and N8.45tn for Local Governments.

However, because the electricity subsidy is to be deducted upfront from the gross FAAC revenue, the amount available for distribution to subnational governments will effectively be reduced.

The deduction means governors may need to reassess allocations for critical sectors such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare to accommodate their share of the subsidy payment.

State energy commissioners react

Meanwhile, the Forum of State Commissioners of Power and Energy in Nigeria has said that it believes that President Bola Tinubu would not do anything against the interests of the masses.

FOCPEN Chairman, Prince Eka Williams, who also serves as the Commissioner for Power and Renewable Energy in Cross River State, told The PUNCH that the forum would make known its positions on the matter later after thorough understanding.

“If that’s what the Federal Government has said, we have to look at it and digest it very well. We have to look at the pros and cons. For now, we have not seen a copy of what the president said.

“But I’m sure what the government would do would be in the interest of Nigerians. I know he’s a  President who cares about the masses. We have not seen him sign into law an anti-people bill,” Williams said.

He said FOCPEN would listen to the analysis of experts before making its decision known to the public.

“Let experts look at the policy very well, not just relying on what people have interpreted it to be. Let experts look at it, and in no distant time, we will make a public statement,” he submitted.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Abia begins relocation of transport operators to new terminal

Published

on

The Abia State Government has commenced the enforcement of its new centralised transport system in Umuahia, with the phased relocation of transport operators to the Nnenna Otti Bus Terminal, Umuahia.

The Commissioner for Information, Okey Kanu, made this known at Government House, Umuahia, on Tuesday while briefing newsmen on the outcome of this week’s State Executive Council (EXCO) meeting presided over by Governor Alex Otti.

The commissioner disclosed that, in order to ensure compliance by transport operators, the state government took time to hold a series of meetings with transport stakeholders, during which their concerns were addressed.

Kanu added that, following the steps taken by the government, full operations had commenced at the terminal, with informal transport operators and unions already moved to the facility, despite the normal resistance that accompanies change.

“There appears to be some push backs among some of the operators and this is as a result of the fact that people are not easily giving in to change.

“What is happening is that all the parks in the state have been moved to the bus terminal.

“The Honourable Commissioner for Transport and his team have been holding a series of meetings with all the operators. They had one yesterday. And a few of their anxieties will be addressed very soon. Enforcement also will commence today to bring all the operators into the terminal.

“The first phase of operations involves the operations of the Abia Green Shuttle buses. The second phase involves informal transport operators, while the third phase will involve the formal transport operators,” Kanu stated.

See also  Benue Assembly suspends ex-Speaker Dajoh over Alia impeachment plot

Answering questions from newsmen, the Commissioner for Transport, Dr Chimezie Ukaegbu, said the state government had not taken away anybody’s means of livelihood but had instead introduced a more organised system to sanitise the transport sector and improve it.

He revealed that transport unions and operators were told to bring four of their workers each to the terminal, where they would be properly identified with reflective tags and carried along.

He further noted that the terminal operates a transparent system that allocates loading opportunities on a first-come, first-served basis irrespective of union affiliations, insisting that about 80 to 90 per cent of operators had embraced the initiative. He added that continuous engagements were being held with those yet to fully comply with the government’s transport policy.

He equally noted that the government provided a drivers’ lodge, fully air-conditioned and furnished with seats, while passengers sit in a conducive air-conditioned environment, adding, “what else will you need as a transporter or even as a passenger? I think everything good about transportation is embedded in that Nnenna Otti Bus Terminal,” Ukaegbu stated.

Contributing, the Special Adviser to the Governor on Media and Publicity, Mr Ferdinand Ekeoma, said that the centralisation of transport operations would reduce urban congestion, indiscriminate loading bays, expenses incurred by transport operators on their loading bays, and security challenges associated with the influx of unregulated transport operators, thereby enabling transport operators to make more gains.

He added that, over the years, “we have seen transport operators extort people, by coming up with this organised system, we are solving our problems,” Ekeoma stated.

See also  16 escape death in Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway crash

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

Court orders Virgin Atlantic to pay N13m for missed flight

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited to pay Mrs. Joy Ezetah the sum of $5,906.50 in damages after it failed to allow her board a scheduled Lagos-London flight, an incident that disrupted her onward trip to Canada and caused her financial loss.

Justice Ibrahim Kala in the judgement delivered on Monday, held that the airline was liable for the losses suffered by the claimant after she was denied boarding at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport on 6 April 2024.

The claimant had asked the court for N100m in general damages, arguing that she bought a business-class ticket through Air Canada for a four-leg trip from Lagos to Toronto and back, but was stopped from boarding the Virgin Atlantic flight “without justification.”

She told the court that she arrived early, completed check-in, and was issued a boarding pass for the Lagos-London leg.

According to her, airline officials later prevented her from boarding, stating they could not connect her ticket to her Air Canada connecting flight from London to Toronto.

Ezetah stated that the airline owed her a duty of care and should have resolved the issue with Air Canada or made other arrangements instead of denying her boarding.

She further maintained that when she later contacted Air Canada, the airline confirmed that her ticket was valid and that she was expected on the connecting flight.

Virgin Atlantic, however, denied liability. It said it was “not the issuing carrier” and insisted that the ticket had been purchased directly from Air Canada under a codeshare arrangement.

See also  FG unveils N54.43tn budget as debt service gulps N15.91tn

The airline also argued that an error code in the reservation system prevented it from issuing a boarding pass for the connecting flight and that it acted professionally by advising the passenger to contact the ticket issuer.

It further contended that the claimant’s inability to complete online check-in before arriving at the airport showed that there was already a problem with the ticket.

After reviewing the evidence, submissions and legal authorities cited by both sides, Justice Kala held that the claimant’s case had merit.

The court awarded $5,906.50 in damages against Virgin Atlantic and ordered that the sum be paid using the prevailing exchange rate published by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Based on the highest official rate of N1,365.50 to a dollar, the award translates to about N8.07m.

Justice Kala also ordered the airline to pay 10 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation of the debt.

Additionally, the court awarded N5m as costs against Virgin Atlantic, noting that the claimant had been forced to approach the court to enforce her rights.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

States kick as Senate moves to amend Electricity Act; read details

Published

on

A fresh battle over the control of Nigeria’s electricity sector is brewing, as state electricity regulators have accused the National Assembly of attempting to claw back powers already devolved to states under the Constitution and the Electricity Act 2023.

In a strongly worded memorandum submitted to the Senate Committee on Power and obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, electricity regulatory commissions and bureaus from 16 states warned that the proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 could reverse one of the most significant reforms in Nigeria’s power sector.

The regulators argued that the amendment bill, rather than strengthening the electricity market, seeks to restore extensive federal oversight over matters they insist have constitutionally become the responsibility of states.

The concerns were contained in a letter dated May 26, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Power and signed on behalf of the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Bureaus.

Signatories to the document included the chairmen and chief executives of electricity regulators in Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Kogi, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and Plateau states.

The regulators said they had taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to begin building sub-national electricity markets and had already engaged investors based on the framework created by the law.

They noted that they had earlier met with the Senate committee and were subsequently requested to consolidate their concerns into a single memorandum for the consideration of lawmakers, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and other stakeholders.

The letter stated, “We represent State Regulatory Commissions/Bureaus that have taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to commence the development of our sub-national electricity markets and sectors.

We are grateful for the audience you granted us to raise concerns on the ongoing consideration of the proposed Amendment Bill 2026 to the Electricity Act 2023.

“As agreed during our discussion, we have collated and consolidated the comments into one document which is hereby attached for the consideration of the Senate and House Committees on Power, NERC and other stakeholders.”

The state electricity regulators said they had identified 17 contentious provisions in the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act that they believed could undermine the constitutional powers already granted to states in the electricity sector.

According to the regulators, the areas of disagreement include the authorisation of State Houses of Assembly to legislate on electricity matters, the supremacy of state laws within state electricity markets, and provisions seeking to retain federal control over all activities connected to the national grid.

Other disputed clauses relate to restrictions on states’ participation in the wholesale electricity market, matters concerning the Nigerian Wholesale Electricity Market, the authority of states over independent transmission and distribution networks, and the establishment and administration of the Power Consumers Assistance Fund.

The regulators also raised concerns over the proposed expansion of the powers of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, the structure and decisions of the Forum of Electricity Regulators, and the provision granting the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission final administrative appellate jurisdiction on certain issues arising within the forum.

See also  Firm unveils first phase of 100MW data centre

They further opposed provisions designating electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply as essential services, as well as clauses dealing with government-owned enterprises as licensees and obligations to host communities.

Additional areas of contention include the regulation of intra-state electricity matters that may have implications for the national grid, the imposition of timelines and phased conditions for states transitioning into independent electricity markets, and proposed federal oversight on consumer protection, anti-trust measures and tariff design within state electricity jurisdictions.

The regulators argued that the disputed provisions require further consultation to ensure that the decentralisation objectives of the Electricity Act are not weakened by subsequent amendments.

“A review of the Bill suggests that the general intention is to reverse the devolution of legislative, governance and regulatory powers over electricity matters that occur solely within the respective states to the state governments, in favour of a reconsolidation of powers at the federal level, with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission retaining full supervisory powers over the market. Effectively, it appears that the intention of the Bill is that Nigeria should continue with the same regime that, for 20 years, has not led to any significant increase in power availability or per capita consumption for Nigerians, despite ever-increasing (and unsustainable) federal debt.”

At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of the constitutional amendments that allowed states to legislate on electricity matters within their territories. The regulators argued that the proposed amendment bill wrongly assumes that state legislatures derive their powers from the National Assembly rather than directly from the Constitution.

According to them, any attempt by the National Assembly to grant, restrict or redefine those powers through ordinary legislation would amount to a constitutional violation.

The memorandum stated, “Section 2 of the Bill aims to amend Section 2(2)(a)-(e) of the Principal Act. By that section, the National Assembly reserves to itself the power to delegate legislative powers to States’ Houses of Assembly, suggesting that the Bill (or the Principal Act) is the source of the powers of a state to make laws on its electricity markets.

“This provision is based on a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law—it proceeds from the wrong assumption that the NASS, by ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendment, can confer (or restrict) the legislative power of states.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do. Consequently, Section 2 of the Bill, seeking to amend Section 2 of the Act, is not consistent with the Constitution.”

See also  Africa exposed to Middle East war – Experts

The regulators described as “a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law” the provisions of the bill that appear to suggest that the National Assembly is the source of states’ authority over electricity matters.

They warned that the proposed law could undermine the principle of federalism by weakening state autonomy. Beyond constitutional concerns, the regulators said the bill could create uncertainty in the electricity market and discourage investors who had already committed resources based on the existing legal framework.

“The clear intention behind the new drafting is to reconsolidate in the Federal Government matters solely within the state electricity markets which had been devolved to the states,” the memorandum stated.

“This will defeat the key objectives of the Electricity Act and the various states’ electricity laws, even before the regime introduced by them has taken any root. It will introduce avoidable disruption in the industry as significant investment decisions have already been taken based on the Electricity Act 2023, and these investments are now put at risk by this proposed amendment.”

The state regulators specifically faulted provisions relating to federal oversight of activities connected to the national grid, restrictions on state authority over wholesale electricity transactions, the proposed expansion of NERC’s powers and changes affecting mini-grids and independent distribution systems.

They argued that allowing NERC to retain overriding authority over electricity activities merely because they have some connection to the national grid would effectively render state powers meaningless.

The memorandum stated, “What is required, in order to attain the full benefits of the decentralisation of the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry that is the theme of the Fifth Alteration and provided for in the Principal Act, is proper coordination on transmission matters between NERC and state regulators, and not top-down federal legislation.”

The regulators also rejected provisions that would permit NERC to exercise final administrative appellate jurisdiction over disputes involving state electricity regulators. According to them, NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority.

“NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority,” the memorandum said. “The National Assembly cannot arrogate to NERC quasi-judicial authority over SERCs, especially where the dispute might be on a matter over which NERC has no authority.”

They further argued that the Constitution already vests judicial powers in the courts and that such responsibilities cannot be transferred to a regulatory agency. The proposed establishment of a Forum of Electricity Regulators also drew criticism.

Although the regulators acknowledged the importance of coordination among electricity regulators, they argued that participation in such arrangements should be voluntary rather than imposed through federal legislation.

See also  FG, AFC ink $1.3bn mining investment deal

“The better approach would be a Memorandum of Understanding or similar instrument jointly negotiated by all relevant regulatory bodies in which the principles of coordination and harmonisation will be agreed,” they said.

The state regulators equally opposed provisions declaring generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity as essential services covering both federal and state electricity markets.

According to them, such provisions could inadvertently expand NERC’s jurisdiction into areas already devolved to states, including tariff regulation. “The provision is invidious, regressive and should be expunged,” the memorandum stated.

The regulators also faulted proposals empowering NERC to determine contributions to the Power Consumers Assistance Fund from electricity consumers. They argued that since electricity tariffs and retail supply have become matters for state regulation, decisions relating to subsidies and customer contributions should similarly reside with state authorities.

Other contentious areas identified by the regulators included host community obligations, the role of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, licensing arrangements involving government-owned electricity enterprises and timelines for states transitioning into independent electricity markets.

The dispute highlights the growing tension between the Federal Government and states over the future structure of Nigeria’s electricity industry. The Electricity Act 2023 was enacted following the Fifth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which removed electricity from the Exclusive Legislative List and empowered states to generate, transmit and distribute electricity within their territories.

Since then, several states have enacted electricity laws and established regulatory agencies to oversee emerging sub-national electricity markets. Lagos, Enugu, Ekiti, Ondo, Edo and other states have already commenced varying stages of implementation of their electricity reform programmes.

Energy experts have repeatedly described the decentralisation of the sector as a major opportunity to attract investment, improve efficiency and expand access to electricity. However, the latest amendment proposals appear to have reopened the debate over how regulatory powers should be shared between Abuja and the states.

As the National Assembly continues deliberations on the amendment bill, the position adopted by lawmakers could shape the future direction of Nigeria’s electricity reforms and determine whether the country deepens its experiment with decentralisation or returns to a more centralised regulatory model.

The Electricity Act 2023 was designed to operationalise the constitutional amendments that empowered states to participate directly in electricity generation, transmission and distribution within their boundaries. Since its enactment, several states have passed their own electricity laws and established regulatory commissions.

The proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 seeks to amend several provisions of the principal legislation. However, state regulators contend that some of the proposed changes amount to an attempt to reverse the gains of decentralisation and restore broad federal control over the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending