Opinion

63 Years Of Electricity Mirage

Published

3 years ago

October 4, 2023

Reliable electric power supply has remained an elusive mirage for millions of Nigerians, as well being a major factor underlying Nigeria’s economic woes. There is no prosperous nation, despite it’s natural endowments and strategic location on the globe, that is not backed by a robust power sector. Series of past Nigerian leaders appeared to champion national industrialisation. Apparently, they were not oblivious of the fact that industrialisation runs on the backbone of sufficient, steady, or predictable, electricity. Their past posturings notwithstanding, industrialisation has remained elusive while electricity for basic household uses remains a prayer point for most Nigerians, 62 years after colonial independence. According to reports, electricity power generation in Nigeria began in 1886 when two generating sets were installed to serve the then colony of Lagos while later in 1951, the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria (ECN) was established by an Act of Parliament. Shortly after Independence in 1962, the Niger Dams Authority (NDA) was established for the development of hydroelectric power.
Ten years later in 1972, both ECN and NDA were merged into the infamous the National Electric Power Authority, NEPA with the responsibility of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity across Nigeria. Similar to most post-independence government establishments, NEPA’s failures ranked those of the defunct NITEL and the Nigerian Airways. 32 years later, during the Olusegun Obasanjo – led civilian administration’s privatisation drives in 2004, NEPA was privatised into government-owned Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN). As if there was something ominous about the phrase ‘Power Holding’ in PHCN which still held the free flow of electricity, PHCN was quickly unbundled, following an Electric Power Sector Reform (EPSR) Act of March 2005, to enable private companies participate in electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, in a wave of reforms that also swept off poorly performing NITEL. The Act also created the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) as an independent regulator for the energy sector.
The PHCN was unbundled into eleven electricity Distribution Companies (DisCos), six Generating Companies (GenCos), and a Transmission Company (TCN). Unfortunately, while the federal government privatised the GenCos and DisCos, it retained ownership of the TCN which then stood as a stifling bottleneck to both the production and consumption ends in the electricity business, by ‘holding’ central monopoly as the sole receiver of all generated electricity from the GenCos and the sole suppler to the DisCos, whereas government should have been only a regulator via the NERC, or at most an equal competitor like MTEL in the telecoms sector. It is therefore noteworthy that its the participation of government via TCN in the electricity business processes that holds the flow of power. Is it not abnormal that the TCN which does not bear the business risks nor benefits of investing in electricity generation or distribution infrastructure, solely manages electricity transmission network in the country? What is the stake of the TCN, and what motivates its priorities?
It is no wonder the TCN has not done the much needed overhaul of its inherited, dilapidated transmission infrastructure. As the energy sector continues to slumber in Nigeria, it is imperative to compare Nigeria with its African peers. According to the US Energy Information Administration’s 1980 – 2021 energy survey, most populous African nation, Nigeria with a population of over 220 million ranks 5th in energy production capacity at 11.7 Gigawatts, behind much less populated South Africa at 63.28 Gigawatts, serving a 60.41 million population, followed closely by Egypt at 60.07 Gigawatts, serving 112.7 million persons, Algeria at 21.69 Gigawatts for 48.6 million persons, and Morocco at 14.26 Gigawatts which serves 37.84 million persons.Nigeria ranks far lower if the comparison is computed on energy per head basis, where Libya which produces 10.53 Gigawatts for a 6.9 million population supplies over 1500 watts per head, Nigeria in comparison, supplies a paltry 52.18 watts per head. This is even lower, considering the actual power consumed due to transmission inefficiency, and the epileptic, unpredictable nature of our supply, unlike in West African neighbour, Ghana, where though production capacity is low at 5.35 Gigawatts for 34.12 million, the supply schedule is dependable to the extent that companies now exit Nigeria for Ghana due to power epilepsy, whereas their major markets remain in Nigeria.
Ghana is turning the Economic Commission of West African States’ free trade treaty to its advantage. Local businesses relocating to Ghana, a neighbouring country with stable electricity and a more business friendly environment, can produce and ship to countries within the ECOWAS free trade zone. In 2006, two of Nigeria’s leading tyre manufacturers, Michelin and Dunlop, relocated factories to Ghana citing epileptic energy supply in Nigeria as main reason. Other companies have since followed suit. The high unemployment rate, rapidly dwindling economy and a depreciating currency are some effects of these corporate decisions. South Africa and Botswana generate most of their electricity from coal to achieve more than 72 per cent universal electricity access in their respective countries, followed by Kenya and Senegal. Meanwhile Nigeria has rich coal and petroleum energy resources among others, that could be applied to boost its energy mix.
While the industrialised world has used fossil energy to hone their technologies to levels where universal electricity access through clean and renewable energy resources are now achievable, Nigeria would find it more difficult to use its fossils when global environmental conditions become critical, and may emerge as an old-fashioned polluter when, and IF, it does wake up. Considering that privatisation of the energy sector was a laudable reform, it emerged with a faulty structural constrictions posing as the TCN, which has knotted operators into a circle of vicious blame traders, whereas the much-needed commodity is kilowatt-hours. It is very obvious that the model of the reform structure that emerged in the telecoms sector would have been more appropriate as witnessed in the rapid transformations that followed the unbundling of NITEL, where government’s regulatory agency, the National Communications Commission, stood away from the daily operational processes of MTN, Econet, Glo and government-owned MTEL, enabling these operators to have end-to-end control of production, distribution and sales, as well as being able to solely pursue priorities that drive company objectives.
The manifesting benefits became outstanding, and transformational in proportions no one ever imagined. It is to the credit of Nigeria that these telecom companies, while competing to serve Nigerians, gained the enabling capacities that made them big international players. A vibrant energy company in Nigeria should have the enablement to independently plan its strategy, source its fuel, generate electricity, and distribute electricity directly to its consumers while NERC devises the appropriate energy metering modality and service ethics. It would be to the nation’s advantage if energy firms operate in a competitive environment by not allotting them exclusive coverage areas, a monopoly that breeds complacency. NERC should devise a means by which these firms run supply lines side by side in every part of Nigeria they have the capacity to operate. As every business is driven by profits and customer base, a company’s ability to control its business processes amidst competition, would enable it see the potentials that spur it towards innovations and expansion. Nigeria’s energy sector continues to slumber in the absence of total, private process control and free competition.

By: Joseph Nwankwo

Opinion

Checking Voter Apathy In Nigeria’s Electoral Process

Published

1 day ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Apathy may express frustration, but surrendering our votes only gives others greater power to determine our future. Nigeria needs credible elections, accountable leaders and citizens who refuse to abandon their democratic rights.”

“I actually don’t know what is wrong with this country called Nigeria. Nothing will ever make me go out under the scorching sun to vote for anybody again. After all, my vote doesn’t count. “We go out and vote, but in the end, they announce whatever result they want and tell the opponents to go to court. Is this the Nigeria we all want?” These are the frustrations of many Nigerians who have lost faith in the electoral process. For them, elections have become a cycle of high expectations, alleged irregularities and disappointing outcomes. Consequently, many are becoming indifferent to how political leaders emerge and what they do after assuming office. This growing voter apathy poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s democracy and must be addressed before the 2027 general election.

Some politicians, including councillors, local government chairmen, members of the House of Representatives, senators and governors, have disappointed the people they were elected to represent. Constituents who expect their representatives to address pressing community needs often complain of neglect, poor performance and limited engagement after elections.bAs Chinua Achebe’s celebrated novel, “Things Fall Apart”, suggests, things appear to be falling apart in Nigeria’s electoral system. Yet, withdrawing from the electoral process is not the solution. Rather, it could worsen the situation by allowing a relatively small proportion of voters to determine the country’s political future. Recently, the National Orientation Agency (NOA) launched a nationwide grassroots mobilisation campaign to address voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence ahead of the 2027 general election.

The campaign, themed “Your Vote, Your Voice, Our Future: Say No to Apathy, Vote Buying and Violence. Let’s Build a United Nigeria in 2027,” was inaugurated in Abuja. Speaking at the event, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, commended the agency for the initiative, emphasizing that citizens must recognize the importance of their votes in determining the country’s political leadership and future. He warned that voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence threatened democratic development, calling for stronger collaboration among government institutions, electoral authorities, security agencies, community leaders and citizens. The Director-General of the NOA, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, explained that the agency would deploy its state directorates across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory to promote responsible electoral participation.

The campaign will use local languages, radio programmes, town hall meetings, community dialogues, drama and digital platforms to reach Nigerians in both urban and rural communities. The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, also reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to conducting free, fair, transparent, inclusive and credible elections in 2027. He stressed the importance of early preparation, stakeholder collaboration and active citizen participation. These initiatives are commendable. However, their success will depend on sustained implementation rather than public announcements alone. Voter education must continue beyond election periods, while electoral institutions must demonstrate through their conduct that citizens’ votes deserve protection.

The government, political parties, electoral authorities and civil society organisations (CSOs) all have important roles to play. First, governments must demonstrate genuine commitment to credible elections by rejecting electoral manipulation, vote buying and the use of thugs to intimidate voters. Electoral offences must be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law. Security agencies must also remain professional and impartial throughout the electoral process. Beyond elections, elected officials must deliver the dividends of democracy. Reliable electricity, accessible healthcare, quality education, good roads and employment opportunities can help restore public confidence in governance. Citizens are more likely to participate when they see that democracy can improve their lives.

Political officeholders must also change their attitude towards their constituencies. Representatives should maintain regular contact with their constituents, explain their activities and demonstrate how they address local concerns. Representation should not end with election campaigns, nor should elected officials remember their constituents only when another election approaches. CSOs and political parties must intensify voter education, helping citizens understand that voting is a fundamental democratic right and an important means of holding leaders accountable. Voters should also learn to verify electoral information, report irregularities through appropriate channels and reject inducements that compromise their choices.

The electorate, too, has responsibilities. Voters must resist the temptation to sell their votes for money, food or other temporary benefits. Although economic hardship makes such inducements attractive to some, selling a vote undermines the opportunity to demand accountable leadership. Equally important is the rejection of electoral violence and misinformation. Nigerians must learn to disagree politically without becoming enemies. Citizens should verify claims before sharing them, particularly on social media, and report suspected electoral malpractice to the appropriate authorities. Participation also extends beyond voting. Citizens can attend community meetings, question elected representatives, monitor public projects and demand transparency between elections.

Nevertheless, citizens cannot be expected to sustain enthusiasm when credible complaints are ignored or electoral processes lack public confidence. INEC must therefore strengthen transparency, improve election logistics, communicate promptly and ensure that electoral complaints are handled in accordance with the law. Where disputes arise, the courts must provide lawful remedies. Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive when eligible voters surrender their voices out of frustration. Restoring participation requires more than urging people to turn out on election day. It demands credible elections, responsible leadership, effective civic education and accountability. The 2027 general election presents an opportunity to rebuild public trust.

The NOA campaign is a welcome step, but all stakeholders must translate its message into action. Every eligible Nigerian should understand that a vote is not merely a mark on a ballot paper; it is an opportunity to influence the country’s future. Apathy may express frustration, but active and responsible participation offers a better chance of achieving change. The time to restore confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process is now. The earlier we act, the better for our democracy and future generations.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Oil Exploration Mustn’t Cost Lives

Published

1 day ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “No oil vessel, commercial contract or operational deadline is worth the loss of innocent lives; where environmental grievances are ignored and dialogue gives way to confrontation, the entire society pays a price that no compensation can adequately erase.”

The recent boat tragedy in Kula Kingdom, Akuku-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State, has highlighted the troubling relationship between petroleum operations, environmental grievances and the safety of oil-producing communities. The reported loss of lives during a confrontation over an oil vessel is a painful reminder that commercial interests must never overshadow human life. The incident occurred on October 20, 2026, along the Robertkiri waterways of Kula, when a community boat capsized amid tensions surrounding the movement of the ANAMBRA BASIN Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessel. Community members were reportedly protesting unresolved concerns over an alleged oil spill, environmental remediation and other outstanding obligations. Reports initially indicated that 10 people were feared dead. However, TheCable reported on October 23 that seven people had died, with five bodies recovered and two others missing. Investigations are needed to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The tragedy raises fundamental questions about how disputes between oil-related businesses and host communities are managed. Why should disagreements over environmental concerns and contractual obligations escalate into situations involving loss of lives? What mechanisms exist to address grievances before they develop into dangerous confrontations? These questions demand urgent and impartial answers. For decades, communities across the Niger Delta have complained about oil pollution, damaged fishing grounds, declining livelihoods and inadequate environmental remediation. In riverine settlements such as Kula, fishing sustains many households. Pollution therefore threatens not only the environment but also food security, family income and children’s welfare.

Allegations of oil spills must not be dismissed as routine complaints or obstacles to petroleum operations. They require prompt investigation, independent environmental assessment and appropriate remediation wherever pollution is established. Disputes over compensation or contractual obligations should be resolved transparently, using verifiable records rather than confrontation. The incident also highlights the need to clarify responsibilities among vessel owners, contractors, petroleum operators and other parties. Max Shipping Services Limited, owner of the ANAMBRA BASIN vessel, has denied responsibility for the underlying oilfield operations and explained that the vessel was hired to Menal Technical Services Limited. These claims must be examined alongside community allegations and available evidence. No company should be condemned without proof, but contractual arrangements must not shield anyone from established responsibility.

Equally important is the reported involvement of armed security personnel in the confrontation. Security agencies have a legitimate duty to maintain law and order and protect lives. However, their operations require professionalism, restraint and sound judgement, especially in tense communities. Armed personnel deployed to manage disputes should help de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and facilitate peaceful resolution. Investigators must establish the circumstances surrounding their deployment, the sequence of events leading to the boat’s capsizing and whether reasonable precautions were taken. All parties deserve a fair hearing, and anyone found culpable should face appropriate legal consequences. The Rivers State Government must not treat the incident merely as a marine accident without examining its underlying grievances.

Beyond expressing sympathy, government should support a credible investigation, assist affected families and facilitate engagement among the community, companies and regulatory agencies. Every necessary effort should also be made to locate the missing persons. Environmental and petroleum regulators must independently investigate the alleged spill and determine whether remediation is necessary. Where pollution is confirmed, responsible parties must fulfil their legal obligations. The Petroleum Industry Act provides a framework for host-community development and environmental responsibilities; these provisions must deliver practical protection for affected communities. Community leaders and youths must equally pursue legitimate demands through peaceful and lawful channels. This does not require silence in the face of pollution or alleged breaches of agreements. Rather, petitions, negotiations, peaceful protests and legal remedies can advance accountability without exposing residents to avoidable danger.

Companies and contractors must maintain effective communication with host communities and address complaints promptly, rather than engage only when disputes threaten operations. Government must intervene early, not wait until tensions erupt. Transparent agreements, independent assessments and accessible grievance mechanisms can prevent misunderstandings from escalating into deadly confrontations. The Niger Delta has endured decades of environmental concerns and disputes over the benefits and burdens of petroleum extraction. Its people should not have to risk their lives to secure attention to legitimate grievances. Oil revenue cannot justify preventable deaths or the neglect of communities where extraction takes place.

The Kula tragedy must become a turning point. Authorities must establish the truth, determine responsibility based on evidence, support bereaved families and ensure legitimate environmental concerns receive attention. Ultimately, petroleum operations should be judged not only by revenue generated or crude oil transported, but also by whether host communities enjoy environmental protection, economic opportunity and personal safety. Oil profits must never cost lives. Kula deserves justice, transparency and lasting solutions. The deaths on its waterways must not become another statistic in the Niger Delta’s troubled history. They must remind every responsible institution that no commercial interest is more valuable than human life.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?

Published

1 week ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate.

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku