By: Dr. Philip B. Olusola, Lead City University, Ibadan.
When Nigerians pay for electricity, infrastructure and still have to endure unreliable service, who protects the consumer?
Last week, electricity officials arrived in our community in Emure-Ile, Owo with a message that left many residents bewildered: some electricity connections were to be disconnected because the meters were not three-phase.
What followed in my own case illustrates a larger problem that millions of Nigerian electricity consumers face every day.
My house has three lines, which previously gave us some flexibility to change over to the line on which electricity was available. The officials disconnected two of the lines, leaving only one. The consequence is simple but painful: when electricity is unavailable on the remaining line, my household remains in darkness, sometimes for days or even weeks, while neighbouring houses connected to another line may have electricity.
This experience raises a fundamental question: Are Nigerian electricity consumers receiving the service for which they are paying?
This is not an argument against legitimate technical standards. Electricity distribution must be safe, properly regulated, and technically sound. If a particular connection is required to be upgraded for safety or regulatory reasons, consumers deserve a clear explanation and a practical pathway to compliance.
But a technical requirement should not become an excuse for leaving paying consumers without meaningful access to electricity.
NERC’s regulatory framework recognises both single-phase and three-phase connections. It also recognises consumers’ rights to safe and reliable electricity supply, transparent billing, properly installed meters, and due process before disconnection. The question, therefore, is whether these protections are being consistently translated into the everyday experience of consumers.
The Consumer Is Paying – But Who Is Accountable?
The frustration goes beyond my personal experience.
Across Nigeria, consumers complain about poor electricity supply, deteriorating infrastructure, disputed bills, arbitrary disconnections, inadequate metering, and additional financial demands for connections and infrastructure.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is the situation in which communities are compelled to provide infrastructure themselves.
In many places, residents come together to raise money to purchase transformers because existing infrastructure cannot adequately serve their communities. After spending their hard-earned money on the equipment, they approach the electricity distribution company to install, connect or energise it.
Yet consumers may still be confronted with further financial demands before the infrastructure is connected.
Then, after connection, they receive monthly electricity bills for electricity supplied through infrastructure they helped to finance.
This deserves serious public scrutiny.
NERC’s own published guidance states that consumers are generally not expected to purchase, replace, or repair transformers, poles, and other distribution assets because the cost of such infrastructure is incorporated into electricity tariffs.
If this is the regulatory position, why are Nigerians still being placed in situations where communities have to raise money to provide essential electricity infrastructure?
And when they do, what happens to the money they have invested?
Who owns the transformer?
Who maintains it?
Is the asset incorporated into the distribution company’s records?
Are the consumers entitled to any credit or recognition for their investment?
And can they subsequently be asked to contribute again when the same infrastructure requires repair or replacement?
These are not merely technical questions. They are questions of fairness, accountability, and consumer protection.
Paying More Does Not Mean Receiving Better
Nigeria’s electricity tariff regime has increasingly sought to link payment to service quality. Customers are placed in service bands based on expected minimum hours of supply.
The principle is reasonable: the quality of service should correspond to what the consumer is required to pay.
But the effectiveness of such a system depends on accurate monitoring and rigorous enforcement.
A consumer should not be required to pay a premium for a service that is not being delivered.
If a DisCo fails to meet the approved service level, the consumer should not have to embark on a bureaucratic struggle before the appropriate adjustment is made.
Similarly, where a customer is disconnected, there should be a transparent explanation, proper notice, and an accessible avenue for immediate redress.
A consumer who owes money should pay.
But a consumer who does not owe money should not be treated as a delinquent customer merely because of a technical or administrative dispute.
When Technical Decisions Become a Consumer’s Nightmare
My experience in Emure-Ile, Owo highlights another dimension of the problem.
Electricity distribution is not simply about whether there are poles and wires in a community. The technical configuration of those networks directly determines whether individual households receive electricity.
If a household is connected to a line or phase that has no supply while another phase is energised, the affected household may remain in darkness while its neighbour enjoys electricity.
This means that two Nigerians living next door to each other can pay electricity bills but experience completely different realities.
The consumer should therefore be entitled to know:
What line or phase is my house connected to? Why is it connected there? What happens when that phase is unavailable? And what obligation does the electricity provider have to ensure that I am not left without electricity for prolonged periods merely because of network configuration?
These are legitimate questions that regulators must answer.
The National Assembly Must Resume Effective Oversight
This is where the National Assembly must become more visible.
Oversight does not mean interfering with the commercial operations of electricity companies. It means ensuring that institutions empowered by law are actually protecting the public interest.
The Senate and House of Representatives committees on power should invite NERC, the DisCos and other relevant stakeholders to explain the persistent complaints of consumers.
They should specifically investigate:
● Community-funded transformers and other distribution infrastructure;
● Charges imposed on consumers for connections and infrastructure;
● Disconnection practices;
● Billing disputes and estimated billing;
● Metering challenges;
● Compliance with approved service bands;
● Responsibility for maintenance of consumer-funded infrastructure; and
● The effectiveness of existing consumer complaint and redress mechanisms.
The objective should not be to witch-hunt the electricity companies.
It should be to answer one simple question:
Is the Nigerian electricity consumer receiving value for money and adequate protection under the law?
If the answer is no, then the National Assembly must act.
The Presidency and Regulators Must Demand Results
The Presidency also has an important role to play.
Electricity is too fundamental to Nigeria’s economic development to be treated merely as another regulatory matter.
Businesses cannot operate efficiently without reliable power. Hospitals cannot function optimally. Schools cannot provide modern education. Artisans and small businesses cannot remain competitive when they spend enormous sums on alternative power.
The regulatory transition created by the Electricity Act 2023 makes accountability even more important. With several states now taking responsibility for electricity regulation within their jurisdictions, consumers must know exactly which authority is responsible for protecting them.
Decentralisation should bring regulation closer to the people.
It must not create a situation in which consumers are passed from one institution to another whenever they seek redress.
NERC and the state electricity regulators must therefore ensure that complaints are resolved promptly and that consumers are not left helpless against service providers.
The Consumer Also Has Responsibilities
This argument should not be misunderstood.
Electricity consumers have responsibilities. Electricity theft, meter bypass, illegal connections, vandalism and deliberate destruction of infrastructure cannot be justified.
Consumers should pay for electricity they consume.
But responsibility must be mutual.
Consumers must pay for legitimate electricity consumption, while electricity providers must provide the service, transparency and accountability for which consumers are paying.
The relationship cannot be one-sided.
A National Audit Is Necessary
One practical step the authorities should consider is a nationwide audit of electricity infrastructure financed by communities, individuals and businesses.
The audit should establish who provided the money, the value of the equipment, where it is located, who currently owns it, who is responsible for its maintenance and whether it has been incorporated into the relevant distribution company’s asset records.
Where consumers have been improperly charged, appropriate refunds or credits should be considered.
Where officials have demanded unauthorised payments, there should be investigation and sanctions.
Where regulations are inadequate, they should be strengthened.
Nigerians Deserve Better
The Nigerian electricity consumer is not asking for charity.
He is asking for value.
He is asking for fairness.
He is asking why he should contribute money to provide a transformer, pay again to have it connected, pay monthly electricity bills and still endure prolonged darkness.
He is asking why electricity officials can disconnect his lines without providing a sufficiently clear explanation of how the decision protects him or improves the service he receives.
He is asking why neighbouring houses can have electricity while his own remains in darkness simply because of the line or phase to which he is connected.
And, ultimately, he is asking a question that government cannot afford to ignore:
Who protects the Nigerian electricity consumer?
The answer cannot merely be another regulation on paper.
It must be an effective regulatory system that works in practice.
The National Assembly should strengthen its oversight. The Presidency should demand results. NERC and state regulators should enforce the rules without fear or favour. Electricity distribution companies should be held accountable for the quality of service they provide.
Nigerians are willing to pay for electricity.
What they should not be required to do is pay repeatedly for infrastructure, pay increasingly expensive bills and still pay the price of darkness.
The time has come to put the Nigerian electricity consumer at the centre of electricity-sector reform.
Nigerians deserve electricity. They deserve value for their money. And, above all, they deserve a system that protects them.
— Philip B. Olusola, PhD, is a Public Affairs Analyst and Academic
