John Onyeukwu | Development News Network |
Nigeria’s electricity “Band” pricing framework was conceived as a technocratic solution to a failing power sector. By linking tariffs to hours of supply, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) sought to impose discipline on pricing and restore investor confidence. Under the model, Band A customers are expected to receive a minimum of 20 hours of electricity daily, and to pay a premium for that reliability.
But today, the defining feature of the system is not differentiation. It is non-delivery.
Across the country, many Band A customers report receiving far less than the promised supply, often below 15 hours per day. This reality transforms the debate. The issue is no longer simply whether tariffs are fair across bands; it is whether the system is legally, constitutionally, and morally defensible when it fails to deliver what it charges for.
At the level of law, the Band framework derives its authority from the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005. The statute empowers NERC to establish tariffs that are fair and reasonable, while ensuring that licensees recover their costs in a manner that promotes efficiency and improved service quality. Embedded in this framework is an implicit bargain: higher tariffs are justified only where they correspond to better service. When Band A customers consistently receive fewer hours than stipulated, the issue is no longer merely operational. It raises questions of regulatory compliance and, arguably, a constructive breach of the conditions under which tariffs are approved. In a well-functioning regulatory system, persistent under-delivery relative to priced commitments would trigger visible enforcement actions. The difficulty in Nigeria is not the absence of such provisions, but the inconsistency with which they are applied.
The constitutional dimension, though indirect, is no less important. Electricity is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, yet it is indispensable to the realization of rights the Constitution does protect. The right to life becomes fragile where hospitals cannot function reliably. The right to dignity is strained where households and small businesses are left without the most basic form of modern energy. Beyond these enforceable rights, the Constitution’s directive principles envision a state committed to securing the welfare and well-being of its citizens. Even if non-justiciable, these provisions articulate a standard against which public policy can be judged. A system that charges a premium for essential infrastructure while failing to deliver it raises a deeper question about accountability in governance and the integrity of the social contract.
From a human rights perspective, electricity is increasingly understood as an enabling condition for the enjoyment of a wide range of rights. The United Nations, through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, recognises the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health, both of which depend fundamentally on reliable energy. The African Union, in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, similarly guarantees rights to health and to a satisfactory environment conducive to development. These instruments have been interpreted to require that essential services be available, accessible, affordable, and of adequate quality. Nigeria’s Band system, in its current operation, struggles particularly with availability and quality, even for those who pay the highest tariffs. The problem is no longer confined to inequality between bands; it extends to the credibility of service delivery itself.
The philosophical tension at the heart of the Band system reflects a clash of ideas about justice and distribution. A utilitarian approach, associated with thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, would defend differentiated pricing as an efficient way to allocate scarce resources, allowing those who value reliability most to pay for it. Yet this logic weakens considerably when the promised reliability is not delivered. A Rawlsian perspective, grounded in the work of John Rawls, would permit inequality only if it benefits the least advantaged. In Nigeria’s case, the structure appears to entrench disadvantage rather than alleviate it. The capability approach of Amartya Sen offers perhaps the most compelling critique. Electricity is not simply a commodity to be priced; it is a foundational capability that enables individuals to function, to work, and to live with dignity. When access to that capability is both unequal and unreliable, the system undermines not just efficiency, but human development itself.
Politically, the Band system was designed to reduce the volatility of tariff debates by tying pricing to measurable service levels. Instead, persistent non-delivery has re-politicised the sector. Public frustration is no longer directed only at rising tariffs, but at the perceived failure of institutions to enforce their own rules. The credibility of both the regulator and the broader reform agenda is now in question. Economically, the consequences are equally serious. The system depends on the willingness of higher-paying customers to sustain the sector’s revenue base. That willingness is ultimately grounded in trust. If consumers paying premium tariffs come to believe they are not receiving commensurate value, compliance will erode liquidity pressures will intensify, and the sector risks slipping back into deeper crisis.
What emerges is a reform that is conceptually sound but operationally misaligned. The Band system assumes that service commitments are technically achievable, that performance can be transparently measured, and that non-compliance will attract consequences. Where these assumptions do not hold, the model cannot sustain itself.
Nigeria’s electricity challenge, therefore, is not merely about tariff design. It is about restoring alignment between price and performance, between regulation and enforcement, and between policy ambition and infrastructure reality. Until that alignment is achieved, the Band system will continue to function less as a tool of efficiency and more as a visible symbol of broken promises.
Electricity is more than an economic input. It is the infrastructure upon which dignity, opportunity, and modern life depend. A system that prices it must, at the very least, deliver what it promises. Anything less is not simply inefficiency; it is a failure of law, a strain on constitutional ideals, and a quiet erosion of public trust.
Short Bio
John Onyeukwu, Esq., is a legal practitioner, policy strategist, and institution builder with a strong interest in governance reform, social innovation, and the intersection of law, data, and public accountability. He serves as Founder, Institute for Social Impact Practice and Leadership (ISIPL), where he leads research, thought leadership, and capacity-building initiatives focused on strengthening institutions and advancing impact-driven leadership across Africa.
He can be reached at john@isipl.org
Share this
