Editorial

Making Power Sector Work

Published

7 years ago

October 23, 2019

The Managing Director of Schneider Electric for Anglophone West Africa, Mr. Christophe Begat, was recently reported to have said that about 90 per cent of Nigerians lack access to safe and efficient electricity.
Begat’s disclosure which was made at his firm’s 2019 Digital Innovation Day in Lagos, raises serious concern as it came from an expatriate who expectedly spoke from a professional standpoint rather than a politician whose argument is wont to be laced with unnecessary propaganda.
To be sure, Nigerians had previously bandied figures to illustrate the prostate state of the nation’s power sector but none has been as frightening as the latest rating from a firm that is deeply engaged in the development and management of minigrid power supply systems, especially in Nigeria’s rural areas.
It is sad to observe that Nigerians would find themselves in this near hopeless situation six years after the nation’s power supply structure was unbundled and privatised. As at the time of the September 30, 2013 privatisation, the country had six electricity generating companies (Gencos), 11 distribution companies (Discos), the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN), the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc (NBET) and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) as the regulatory authority. Unfortunately, these efforts have only yielded a marginal improvement in the power situation.
Prior to 2015, the maximum daily power output across the country was said to be between 1,500 and 2,750 MW. This saw an initial push to 4,000 MW after a genuine attempt was made by the Federal Government to upgrade the existing power infrastructure. But it did not take long before electricity output and supply relapsed to about 3,125 MW, principally on account of a drop in water level, gas supply shortfall and weak transmission lines.
According to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, while commissioning a power project in his native Ogun State, recently, Nigeria currently has an installed capacity of 13,427 MW of which about 8,340 MW is available whereas the grid has the capacity to transmit only 7,000 MW. But some power sector analysts have quickly countered by saying that the nation currently struggles to produce an average of 5,000 MW out of which about 7.5 per cent is lost in transmission and 30 per cent rejected by the DISCOs.
The epileptic supply of electricity in Nigeria has led to many foreign industrial players relocating their activities to countries where power supply is more predictable. And this means loss of employment, taxes, rents, technology transfer, corporate social responsibility benefits and high cost of goods hitherto produced within. Those who chose to stay back are forced to rely mostly on private electricity generators for their power needs while having to cough out estimated monthly bills for whatever little supply (if any) that may come from the public power source.
The Federal Government was said to have realised $2.5 billion from the power sector privatisation, virtually all of which sum went into the payment of disengaged staff of the defunct Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN); but we are also aware that there have been several government financial interventions in this industry. The latest being the Finance Minister’s announcement of the approval of a $3 billion loan by the World Bank at the just-concluded Bretton Woods institutions meeting in Washington, DC.
Of course, this is outside similar interventions by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and foreign development agencies like USAID, JICA of Japan, GIZ of Germany, among others. In fact, the CBN recently revealed that it had advanced a total credit of N1.695 trillion to the nation’s electricity industry since the privatisation exercise. Where all this has gone into still beats the imagination us as there is hardly any evidence on the ground to explain such humongous outlay.
The Tide is also not unmindful of the fact that the nation’s power investors are operating under very difficult circumstances. These are businessmen who borrowed hugely at the prevailing foreign exchange rate of N155/US Dollar to pay for the acquisition of power facilities in 2013 only for the Federal Government to devalue the Naira to the level of N360/US Dollar in 2016. However, we think that embarking on a sustained metering process alongside the aforementioned government interventions would have enhanced their capacities to repay such loans than the option of estimated billing. Even their resistance to attempts at eliminating this billing method via the maximum demand customers’ option and the ongoing meter asset providers (MAP) has proved futile.
On its part, the Federal Government should endeavour to reduce its overbearing influence in the power sector. NERC is already a government agency, TCN is wholly owned by the government and NBET Plc is equally a state outfit despite its nomenclature. Let whatever tariff that is approved for the sector reflect the prevailing market situation in so far as every electricity user is metered as to pay for exactly what they consume.
Finally, government and, indeed, the private sector should sustain efforts at diversifying the nation’s energy mix from hydro and gas-powered systems to include solar, wind, coal, biomass/biofuels and nuclear. Off-grid clusters should continue to be developed for Micro, Small and Medium Entreprises (MSMEs). In fact, government needs to declare an emergency in the power sector if Nigeria must take full advantage of the recently signed African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA).

Editorial

WPFD: Nigeria’s Defining Test

Published

7 days ago

May 6, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture as the world marked World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) on May 3. This annual observance is a reminder that a free press is central to democratic life, good governance, and public accountability. For Nigeria, it is also a moment for sober reflection on how far the country has come and how far it still has to go in safeguarding the independence of its media.
World Press Freedom Day exists to highlight the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and to honour journalists who risk their lives in pursuit of truth. It underscores the idea that without a free press, societies cannot function transparently, nor can citizens make informed decisions. In countries like Nigeria, where democracy continues to evolve, the observance carries particular urgency.
This year’s theme, “Shaping a Future at Peace: Promoting Press Freedom for Human Rights, Development and Security”, places journalism at the heart of global stability. It emphasises that a peaceful society cannot be built on silence, fear, or manipulated information. Rather, it depends on the free flow of accurate, timely, and independent reporting.
At its core, the theme highlights the role of journalism in fostering accountability, dialogue, and trust. These are not abstract ideals. In Nigeria, where public confidence in institutions is often fragile, the media remains one of the few platforms through which citizens can question authority and demand transparency. When press freedom declines, so too does public trust.
Journalism serves as a foundation for peace, security, and economic recovery. Countries with robust media systems tend to attract greater investment, maintain stronger institutions, and resolve conflicts more effectively. Nigeria’s economic challenges, ranging from inflation to unemployment, require open scrutiny and informed debate, both of which depend on a free press.
However, the issue of information integrity has become increasingly complex in the digital age. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and online platforms have amplified the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In Nigeria, where internet penetration has grown rapidly, false narratives can travel faster than verified facts. This makes the role of credible journalism more vital than ever.
The challenge is not only technological but also ethical. AI-driven manipulation of information threatens to distort public discourse, influence elections, and deepen social divisions. In such an environment, professional journalism must act as a stabilising force, ensuring that truth prevails over sensationalism and propaganda.
Equally troubling is the safety of journalists. Across Nigeria, reporters face growing levels of online harassment, judicial intimidation, and physical threats. Self-censorship is becoming more common, as media practitioners weigh the risks of reporting sensitive issues. This trend undermines the very essence of journalism.
A particularly alarming incident involved a serving minister in the present administration, who openly threatened to shoot a journalist during a televised exchange. Such conduct, broadcast to the public, sends a dangerous signal that hostility towards the press is acceptable. It erodes the norms of democratic engagement and places journalists in harm’s way.
This year’s theme aligns closely with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)16, which promotes peace, justice, and strong institutions. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of this goal. Without it, institutions weaken, corruption thrives, and justice becomes elusive. Nigeria’s commitment to SDG 16 must therefore include genuine protection for the media.
Historically, the Nigerian press has been a formidable force. From resisting colonial rule to challenging military dictatorships, our journalists have played a central role in shaping the nation’s political landscape. Today, however, that legacy appears to be under strain, as the media operates under what can best be described as a veneer of freedom.
Beneath this facade lies a troubling reality. Journalists are routinely harassed, detained, and prosecuted for performing their constitutional duties. Reports from media watchdogs indicate that dozens of Nigerian journalists face legal threats or arrest each year, often for exposing corruption or criticising those in power.
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of 2015 has become a focal point of concern. Originally intended to combat cyber threats, it has increasingly been used to silence dissent. Sections 24 and 27(1)(b), in particular, have been invoked to target journalists, bloggers, and social commentators.
Although amendments introduced in February 2024 were meant to safeguard journalists, concerns persist. The law continues to be wielded in ways that stifle investigative reporting and restrict freedom of expression. Legal reforms must go beyond cosmetic changes to address the root causes of misuse.
To safeguard the future of journalism in Nigeria, decisive action is required. The Cybercrimes Act must be revisited to ensure it cannot be weaponised against the press. Law enforcement agencies must operate free from political influence, upholding the rule of law and protecting journalists’ rights. Civil society and international partners must also strengthen independent media through funding, training, and platforms for wider reach.
In this rapidly evolving world shaped by artificial intelligence and digital innovation, Nigeria faces a clear choice. It can either allow press freedom to erode under pressure, or it can champion a truly independent media landscape. The path it chooses will determine not only the future of journalism, but also the strength of its democracy and the peace it seeks to build.

Editorial

FG’s LIN Policy: The Missing Link

Published

2 weeks ago

April 27, 2026

The Tide

For decades, Nigeria’s education sector has lurched from one grand initiative to the next, each announced with fanfare and abandoned in frustration. The latest proposal, the Learners’ Identification Number (LIN) for primary and secondary pupils, has been presented as a solution to the chronic problem of school dropouts, particularly in the North. Yet before any new system is rolled out, citizens are right to pause and ask: have we not seen this play before?

The Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, deserves some credit for acknowledging a genuine crisis. According to UNESCO data, Nigeria has an estimated 10.5 million children out of school, the highest number in the world, with the northern region accounting for over 60 per cent of that figure. The idea of tracking individual pupils from admission through to graduation is not, in principle, unreasonable. However, the gap between a sound principle and workable implementation has historically been a chasm in this country.

Consider the fate of previous education policies. The Universal Primary Education (UPE) programme of the 1970s collapsed under poor planning, inadequate teacher training, and a lack of sustained funding. The 6-3-3-4 system, introduced in the 1980s to emphasise vocational skills, never achieved its objectives because laboratories and workshops remained empty. More recently, the National Teacher Education Policy (NTEP) introduced in 2014 ran aground due to inconsistent enforcement and low morale among instructors. And presently the Universal Basic Education (UBE). Each policy promised a transformation; each delivered frustration.

The proposed LIN system raises a basic logistical question: does any school today admit a child without recording that admission? Every primary and secondary school already maintains enrolment registers. The challenge is not the absence of identity numbers but the absence of a functional national data collation system, reliable electricity for digital records, and administrative accountability in remote areas. Introducing a new number without fixing these foundations will merely add another layer of paperwork.

Furthermore, the Minister’s plan to phase out the common entrance examination in favour of Continuous Assessment (CA) requires careful scrutiny. While CA can reduce examination pressure, it demands well-trained teachers, standardised evaluation criteria, and rigorous oversight. In many public schools today, class sizes exceed 60 pupils per teacher, and marking is irregular. Without massive investment in teacher quality, CA will become as unreliable as the examination it replaces. Good intentions do not fill gaps in competence.

We must also confront the risk of financial exploitation. Nigeria’s history shows that every new education policy tends to generate new fees: registration fees for identity cards, processing fees for data entry, and renewal fees each term. The Federal Government must give an unequivocal guarantee that the LIN will cost parents and guardians nothing. Given the current economic hardship, with inflation standing at over 28 per cent and food prices soaring, any additional levy, no matter how small, would push more children out of school, not fewer.

The Minister states that the LIN will help identify dropouts. Yet we do not need a complex numbering system to calculate dropout rates. Simply comparing enrolment figures at the start of Primary 1 with attendance at the end of Junior Secondary School 3 would reveal the attrition rate. The real need is not more numbers but more action on the root causes: poverty, child labour, early marriage in some regions, and the poor quality of schooling that makes parents see education as a waste of time.

This brings us to the most direct solution, one the government continues to avoid: free, compulsory basic education nationwide. Section 18 of the 1999 Constitution and the Universal Basic Education Act already mandate free and compulsory education for the first nine years. Yet many states still charge levies for uniforms, parent-teacher association fees, and examination costs. Instead of introducing a tracking number, the government should enforce existing laws, fully release UBEC matching grants, and hold state governors accountable for out-of-school children.

The previous administration’s free school feeding programme showed what is possible when a policy addresses immediate material need. The programme increased enrolment by roughly 15 per cent in targeted areas, according to World Bank monitoring reports. However, it also demonstrated the nemesis of Nigerian policy: corruption. Food quality declined, contractors inflated costs, and political loyalists were favoured over competent caterers. No new number will stop corruption; only transparent auditing and harsh penalties will.

We therefore advise the Federal Government to collapse its many overlapping initiatives into one coherent strategy. The education sector currently suffers from a cacophony of policies: the LIN, Continuous Assessment reform, teacher professional development schemes, digital literacy programmes, and adolescent girls’ education initiatives, among others. Each has its own bureaucratic structure, funding stream, and reporting requirements. Schools, especially in rural areas, cannot manage this chaos. A single, well-funded, long-term plan with clear targets for 2030 would achieve more than a dozen fragmented policies.

Until the government addresses the fundamentals—free tuition, adequate classrooms, and trained teachers—the LIN policy will be remembered as yet another well-intentioned distraction. No identity number ever kept a girl in school when her family could not afford transport. No database ever persuaded a hungry child to stay for afternoon lessons. The missing link in Nigeria’s education sector is not a digit; it is the political will to spend honestly and act decisively. Let the Minister drop this proposal and pick up the harder, older task of enforcing free education for every Nigerian child.

Editorial

Domesticate FG’s Exit Benefit Scheme

Published

1 month ago

April 10, 2026

The Tide

The recent approval of the “Exit Benefit Scheme” by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) stands as a landmark achievement for the administration of President Bola Tinubu. For many observers, this remains one of the most impactful and compassionate policies introduced by the current government. By restoring a sense of financial dignity to those who have dedicated their lives to national service, the administration has demonstrated a clear commitment to the welfare of the Nigerian workforce.

Under this new framework, retirees of the Federal Civil Service are set to receive a gratuity equal to 100 per cent of their last gross annual pay upon retirement. This policy, which officially comes into effect on 1 January 2026, ensures that Federal civil servants are not left stranded the moment they exit the office. It provides a vital financial cushion that has been sorely missing from the lives of many public servants for over two decades.

The primary objective of this scheme is to bolster financial security by providing a significant lump sum payment to eligible employees who have served for at least 10 years. Crucially, this benefit does not exist in isolation; it is designed to work alongside the existing Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). This dual-layered approach ensures that the immediate transition into retirement is as seamless as the long-term pension disbursements that follow.

It is important to clarify that this new benefit is intended to complement, rather than replace, the current CPS managed by Pension Fund Administrators (PFAs). For years, the pure contributory framework left a void where the traditional gratuity once stood. By reintroducing this payment, the Federal Government is addressing a long-standing grievance regarding the adequacy of the total retirement package available to civil servants.

This policy marks a historic return to gratuity payments for Federal Civil Servants after a lengthy hiatus. Since the pension reforms of the early 2000s, the focus has been strictly on contributions, often leaving retirees with a “waiting period” that can be financially devastating. The return of the gratuity signals a shift back toward a more holistic view of worker appreciation and social security.

Indeed, this payment comes exactly 22 years after the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme in 2004. The two-decade gap saw many retirees struggle to adjust to life after service without a substantial initial payout. This intervention demonstrates the Federal Government’s ongoing commitment to policies that promote improved welfare and secure the future of the civil service in a tangible, measurable way.

By reversing the lack of gratuity inherent in the previous purely contributory model, the government has earned the rare and resounding praise of organised labour. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has rightly described this move as a major welfare upgrade. This endorsement highlights the alignment between the government’s policy direction and the actual needs of the Nigerian worker on the street.

We commend President Tinubu for this watershed approval. The new gratuity payment is a sincere reflection of the administration’s recognition of the dedication, sacrifice, and professionalism inherent in the Federal Civil Service. It acknowledges that those who build the nation’s administrative backbone deserve more than just a handshake and a promise of future monthly stipends when they finally step down.

However, the pursuit of social justice must not end with Federal workers alone. We strongly advocate that this initiative trickles down to the various states. The Governor’s Forum should meet as a matter of urgency to approve and adopt the Federal Government’s template. If the central government can find the means to honour its retirees, the states—who are the primary employers of the bulk of the nation’s workforce—should follow suit.

It is a painful reality that many workers retire from service today with nothing to take home on their final day. Pensions frequently take months to process, and in many jurisdictions, gratuities take “forever” to be disbursed. This is why the Exit Benefit Scheme is the true embodiment of Tinubu’s “Renewed Hope Agenda.” There is perhaps nothing that offers more hope to a weary worker than the certainty of a dignified exit.

Shamefully, several state governments are still battling with legacy gratuity payments from years past. Adopting a scheme like this would serve as an essential cushion while long-term arrears are settled. No citizen should face destitution or death simply because they rendered service to their government. It is time to end the era where retirees survive on mere trickles; even a modest lump sum can be the difference between a dignified retirement and a tragic one.

Specifically, we call upon the Rivers State Government to adopt this scheme to give life to its pensioners. The Federal Government has already provided the successful template; there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We must ask: if political office holders are entitled to generous severance benefits after just four or at most eight years, why should civil servants who serve for 35 years go without a similar “severance” package?

In Rivers State, the need for clarity is urgent. Workers who left the service after June last year face the uncertainty of whether they fall under the Defined Benefit Scheme or the Contributory Pension Scheme. The state government must resolve this administrative ambiguity immediately to prevent a full-blown pension crisis. Domesticating the Federal “largesse” should be straightforward, as Rivers is a state blessed with the necessary resources.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara, a former civil servant, understands the plight of the worker better than most. While we commend his administration for paying one of the highest minimum wages in the country, he has the opportunity to go further by becoming the first governor to implement the 100 per cent Exit Benefit Scheme. With this, he can ensure that Rivers State workers, who deserve the best, are truly rewarded for their service.

Let Rivers lead where others have lagged.