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

One Attack Too Many

Published

1 day ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By: King Onunwor

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

2 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael Abraham

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s Outburst

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection.

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office