Opinion

Reduction Of Electricity Tariff: How Desirable?

Published

11 years ago

March 23, 2015

The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission last Wednesday announced the immediate reduction of electricity tariff by 50 per cent.
How did Nigerians welcome the news? Of what use will the tariff review be to the citizens? Our Chief Corresponent, Calista Ezeaku sought answers to these questions from some members of the public. Egberi Sampson was the photographer.
Mrs Ilanye Jumbo-
Journalist. Well, the reduction of that tariff, as good as it sounds, how many Nigerians will actually enjoy it. There is one thing in announcing something, but it is another ball game entirely to implement what has been announced.
Take for example the reduction of the fuel pump price. It was reduced to N87.00 per a litre, but as I speak to you now, people still buy fuel at N100,00, N110.00 per a litreand that is if you see it.
So, as good as it sounds, as good as it seems, as good as it is going to help Nigerians, the major thing should be that there should be an implementation body, the people that will ensure that the reduction is actually implemented because it may have been reduced but when you go to pay now, you begin to hear stories, they will begin to tell you one thing or the other.
Now, there are people who use the pay as you go meter, for them it will be easier to know their bills. But for those who don’t have it, what happens? How will the calculation be done? Some people are given estimated bill, how will they generate their bills? Ordinarily, when electricity tariff is reduced a lot of things ought to spring up, a lot business opportunities ought to spring up but my dear, in the case of Nigeria, it is not always the same, it is not as it ought to be. Under normal circumstance, a lot industries ought to spring up, to enjoy from that reduction but I tell you, it may not be the case. We may not even start enjoying it may be in the next one year. It may begin to have effect after one year if every thing works the way it ought to work. to enjoy from it.
So, I will advise the electricity regulatory agency, if they are there, to sit up. They should sit up and ensure that every of that statement is follow up to the later, because at the end of the day, it is the masses that suffer. Under normal circumstance the reduction should help the people save a little money and use it for other purposes. For instance if I was paying N5000,00 before and it is reduced to N2,500.00 that means I am saving N2,500.00, but how constant is the light? If there is no constant power supply, it means I am going to keep buying N1,000.00 worth of fuel everyday as I have been doing for many months now to power my generator.
So, I don’t want to be a pessimist, but I want to pray and believe that having reduced the tariff, we want to appeal to them to please give us power, but if they will not give us power, they should go back to the old tariff if that will make us have constant power.

Mr Iyaragba Ebinay Media Personnel. I heard the announcement over the radio yesterday and I was happy. If they will implement it I think it will help the poor to be able to pay their electricity bill, I just hope that with the reduction, the power situation in the country will not get worse. I don’t want to believe as some people insinuate that the reduction was done for political reasons. For the federal government to have announced the reduction, that means they have their own inner plan, which I believe will bring about improvement in power supply in the country.

Comrade Dan Otukpo-Civil Servant. Well the cut is quite okay in the sense that the bills that were coming before now were becoming too crazy and without a direction. No direction in the sense that today will get a bill, tomorrow you get something higher than what you expected. The cut also reflects government’s sensitivity to the current hardship being experienced in the country provided it does not have political undertone, provided that not after the elections we begin to see even more increase in the electricity tariff.
If you go by the pay as you go meter, you can actually see that you will save a lot by means of the 50 per cent cut. But if you go by the analog meter where in most cases they bring whatever they feel like by a way of estimation, you may not necessarily see much impact. The cut will tell more on the industries depending on availability of power. It will improve their economy because by giving 50 per cent I think they will be able to have large scale production not minding the price per a unit. It will help our producers, our companies to produce more. The economics of large scale will come into play-power reduction, more scale. It can also give room to the employment of more hands.
For me, the reduction is good. I don’t see it leading to any cut in power because before the reduction I believe there must have been a sort of consultative meeting with the stakeholders.
However, I will advise that government through its institutions and agencies should monitor the reduction to ensure strict compliance otherwise we will still be in Egypt.

Mr Innocent Eze-Businessman. Well, the reduction is what we have been yearning for all these while. We had wanted a situation where government will create enabling environment for business entrepreneurs because the power issue is a serious matter to us. Without power, we cannot actually deliver our services to the public. Without power, we cannot do what we are supposed to do. Also with the high rate of electricity tariff we are constantly struggling to see how we can meet up.
We find it very difficult to meet up because whatever profit we make goes back to paying electricity bills and most of the time they don’t give us power. We buy fuel, we buy diesel to run generators and all these are at a very high rate. And so, it looks as if we are just rigmarolling in what we are doing because what ever little profit we make is used in paying for power, buying diesel and that. If government has seen the need and has come to alleviate our plights by reducing the tariff of electricity, that will be a welcome development.
Let me mention that the problem of the Power Holding Company is corruption. If things are done the way it is supposed to be done, if they receive the genuine electricity bill that people pay and keep the money for government, it will be enough to improve the power situation in the country. But I want to believe that most of those monies they collect are not remitted into government purse.
If you observe, many a times they don’t read meters. They only come and do what they call estimation. If what you are supposed to pay in a month is may be N10,000.00 because they are doing estimation before you know it, it has gone up to about N50,000.00. And I want to believe that they will pay the amount they know you are supposed to pay into government’s account and the rest goes into their pockets.
So the only option to solve this problem and ensure that everybody benefits from the tarriff reduction is through the use of pre-paid meters. Everybody should have it.

Mr Idawari Cookey-Gam- Businessman. The problem is that there is no light already. If there is light they can say they are reducing tariff and people will enjoy it. What you have not seen, how can you enjoy the cut off. So let the light come first and then we can appreciate what the federal government is doing. The issue is that PHCN is not even better for us. Since they took over from NEPA there is no difference. They are worse than NEPA. So for me, the tariff cut makes no sense. It is not what we need now in the country.
Government should try and bring the dollar price down and reduce inflation, that is what we are looking for now.
Loot at what happened to the petroleum sector, government said the pump priced has been reduced to N87.00 but we still buy at N110.00. But people do not mind as long as the product is available, you buy it and go your way. So even if the tariff is raised provided we see light and enjoy it is better than reducing the tariff but nobody sees the light.

Mrs Lucy Bello-Osagie-Businesswoman. There is a particular amount that government say people that are using cut out should be paying every month. By cut out I mean without a meter, people that consume power without meter. They are supposed to pay N3,000.00 every month but now they pay N15,000.00, N20,000.00 every month. Even those of us that use meter are not better. Sometimes the bill you are given if different from the actual amount you are supposed to pay. If you are paying N7,000.00 and next month, you are asked to pay N25,000.00 for the same points will you like it? They just give us bills arbitrarily and it is not good. So government should really look into the Power Holding Company and those working there. A lot of corrupt practices are going on there. You will see that some NEPA officials will come to record the bill, somebody’s meter is reading something and what they are recording is different. If the person’s meter is reading N8,000 they will record N15,000 and when you go to their office they will post you from one table to another.
I don’t even have power in my house now. Look at my cooler, I have been using ice-block for my business for over a year. I don’t have light for over a year and they are billing me over N200.00, from where? So the tariff reduction is a good thing but it cannot impact on the lives of the masses unless corruption in PHCN is tackled.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

6 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”

The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.

Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’ welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.

Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.

Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.

While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.

Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.

For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

6 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”

Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.

The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.

First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.

The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.

State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.

In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.

Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

1 week ago

March 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”

Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy. Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.

Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.

In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.

While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.

If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.

Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.

In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.

Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.

Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.

By: Calista Ezeaku