AmanaOnline

The man said, “If I do not give you 24 hours of electricity supply, do not vote for me again.” I knew almost as soon as he finished that sentence that it was a promise he would eventually eat his words over. It was an extraordinarily bold promise to make in a country where electricity supply has remained a problem for decades. Nevertheless, he made it, and he made it directly to Nigerians. I am therefore prepared to hold him to that promise. But, surprisingly, that is not the reason I would not vote for him again.

My concern goes much deeper. I see in the current electricity arrangement what I consider to be an unacceptable burden being placed on the ordinary Nigerian consumer. The issue is not simply that government has failed to deliver the 24 hours that was promised. It is that, while Nigerians continue to struggle with unreliable electricity, many are being required to pay substantially more for electricity on the basis of a service classification that does not always appear to correspond with what they actually receive.

Let me explain this from my own experience. My house is not an electricity feeder, yet I am told that my premises fall under a Band A feeder. Because that feeder is classified as one that should provide at least 20 hours of supply per day, I am required to pay the Band A tariff of about ₦225 per kilowatt-hour. I understand the principle behind differentiated tariffs. If a customer genuinely receives a higher and more reliable level of service, there is a reasonable basis for paying more for that service. My problem is what happens when the promised level of service does not actually reach the customer.

I have been on Band A for almost two years, and I have never enjoyed 20 hours of electricity every day throughout that period. There are days when the supply is significantly below the supposed Band A standard. Yet the tariff remains Band A. The question that naturally follows is this: why should I pay a premium price for a level of service that I am not consistently receiving? If the service is genuinely being delivered, charge me for it. But if it is not, then there ought to be a transparent and enforceable mechanism for correcting the classification or adjusting the bill.

I am also not making this observation merely as a consumer who is unhappy with his electricity bill. I am an industry professional who worked in the electricity sector for more than a decade. I have had the opportunity to understand the industry from within and I know that the problems of electricity generation, transmission and distribution are neither simple nor new. I therefore understand that providing reliable electricity is not something that can be achieved by political declarations alone. But precisely because I understand some of the complexities of the sector, I am even more concerned when a tariff regime places the burden of service failure primarily on the consumer.

I actually regret leaving the industry before this new Band A tariff regime came into effect. Had I still been in the sector, I would have been a very vociferous voice questioning it and demanding that the interests of the consumer be properly protected. A differentiated tariff regime can only be credible when there is a credible relationship between the category a customer is placed in and the service that customer actually receives. Otherwise, the classification risks becoming more useful for determining what the customer pays than for measuring what the customer gets.

This is where President Tinubu’s 24-hour electricity promise becomes particularly relevant. The promise was not simply that Nigerians would be placed into different categories of electricity consumers and charged according to those categories. The promise was that Nigerians would enjoy reliable electricity. When that ambitious promise could not be delivered, the government moved towards a system where customers on designated Band A feeders would pay more for a higher level of supply. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to improve service and recover the cost of doing so. What is troubling is when the consumer is expected to bear the higher cost without having an equally clear guarantee that the promised service will actually be delivered.

The promise therefore seems to have moved from 24 hours for Nigerians to 20 hours for certain feeders, while the price paid by customers on those feeders has gone up considerably. I am not suggesting that the government should never revise a policy or adjust a tariff. What I am saying is that the customer should not be left carrying the financial consequences when the service standard attached to that tariff is not achieved.

This is not simply a political argument. It is a consumer-rights issue. If a customer is billed according to a particular service standard, there should be a straightforward way for that customer to know whether the standard was achieved. The data should be available, the measurement should be transparent, and there should be consequences when the service provider fails to meet the standard. Otherwise, the customer is effectively being asked to trust a classification that he can see, from his own experience, does not necessarily reflect the electricity coming into his home.

And this is where I sometimes wonder what has happened to our institutions. Where are the lawyers and the professional bodies when policies affecting millions of Nigerians deserve serious legal and public scrutiny? Where are the consumer-protection organisations? Where is the sustained legislative oversight? Why should the ordinary electricity consumer have to accept a system simply because a regulator or government agency has announced it?

I also wonder about the state of our media. Newspapers and media houses are supposed to be watchdogs of government and defenders of the public interest. They should be asking the difficult questions that the ordinary Nigerian cannot easily ask. Instead, too much of our public conversation has become a battle between political supporters and opponents, while the citizen who actually pays the bills is left somewhere in the middle. The poor Nigerian does not care which political camp is celebrating. He wants electricity, and if he is paying a premium for it, he wants to know why he is not receiving the service that premium is supposed to buy.

Electricity is not a luxury. It is an essential part of modern life and a major input into almost everything Nigerians do. Businesses need it to operate, hospitals need it to function, schools need it to teach, and households need it for basic living. When public electricity becomes unreliable, Nigerians are forced to find alternatives, usually diesel, petrol or solar. Those additional costs eventually find their way into the prices of goods and services. So when electricity tariffs rise without a corresponding improvement in service, the effect is not limited to the electricity bill. It contributes to the wider cost of living.

This is why I believe the government owes Nigerians more than tariff announcements. It owes them transparency, measurable service standards and accountability. If Band A means a particular number of hours of supply, let Nigerians be able to verify that those hours are actually being delivered. If a feeder consistently fails to meet the required standard, the customer should not continue indefinitely paying the premium rate as though nothing has happened.

President Tinubu told Nigerians to judge him by his electricity promise. I intend to remember those words. But my concern is bigger than whether he personally fulfilled or failed to fulfil the 24-hour promise. It is about the kind of electricity market and regulatory system that is being created in the process. A reform that increases what Nigerians pay must also be able to demonstrate, clearly and consistently, what Nigerians are receiving in return.

I am not against paying for electricity. I am not against paying more for better electricity. What I object to is the possibility of being charged more because I am classified as receiving a better service when my experience tells me that I am not consistently receiving it. There has to be a point where the classification on paper meets the reality in the home.

That is why, for me, the electricity issue is not simply about an old campaign promise. It is about fairness. It is about whether the Nigerian consumer has any meaningful protection when the service being paid for is not the service being delivered. It is about whether government regulation protects the citizen as much as it protects the structure of the electricity market.

And if we cannot ask those questions openly, if lawyers will not challenge questionable policies, if legislators will not provide effective oversight, if regulators will not adequately protect consumers, and if the media will not persistently investigate these issues, then we should not be surprised when the ordinary Nigerian begins to ask the most fundamental question of all:

What has happened to this country?

— Hf Dauda MoiSoro

Sept 16, 2026