As Elections Near, Darkness Tests Tinubu’s Record

As renewed power disruptions expose Nigeria’s fragile electricity system, Festus Akanbi examines the mounting costs to households, enterprises and national development ahead of the general election For a small business, a power cut is rarely an isolated inconvenience. It can mean spoiled stock, an unfinished order, idle employees or another withdrawal from money reserved for wages. Across Nigeria, electricity failure has become a recurring deduction from household welfare and business survival. The October 19 generation plunge captured that vulnerability. Output fell from about 3,840 megawatts at 7 am to 476.70MW by 1 pm, a loss of 3,363.30MW, or 87.6 per cent. Major stations, including Egbin, Jebba, Shiroro and Kainji, recorded zero output on the dashboard during the disturbance. The Nigerian Independent System Operator subsequently attributed the incident to multiple trippings on the 330kV transmission network, described it as a partial disturbance and announced restoration. That distinction matters: the available evidence does not establish a total nationwide collapse. Nevertheless, the disruption exposed how quickly electricity available to businesses and households can disappear. It also underlined a broader problem. Nigeria’s electricity difficulties extend beyond distribution companies to generation, gas supply, transmission, payment obligations and network management. Failures at any point travel downstream, leaving consumers to finance the consequences of weaknesses they cannot control. Even before that disruption, supply was modest. The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s September 2026 factsheet recorded average available generation capacity of 5,038MW and average hourly generation of 4,089MW. The October plunge was therefore a sudden deterioration in an already constrained system, rather than the interruption of abundant electricity. For households, the damage begins with competing necessities. Money spent fuelling generators cannot also purchase food, medicines or school materials. Refrigeration becomes uncertain; remote work depends on batteries; studying requires improvisation. Families unable to afford backup power endure longer deprivation, while better-off households pay privately for a service the public system cannot reliably deliver. These burdens are unequal. A household with solar panels can preserve some comfort and productivity. A tenant with neither installation rights nor savings has fewer options. Electricity unreliability consequently reinforces existing differences in income, opportunity and living conditions. Among small and medium-sized enterprises, the pressure is particularly severe. Barbers, welders, printers, tailors and frozen-food traders require electricity to earn revenue. When supply fails, they must choose between expensive self-generation and interrupted trading. Neither choice is harmless: one consumes margins, while the other reduces sales. A generator also requires capital, servicing and repairs. Solar equipment can reduce dependence on fuel, but its initial cost remains a barrier for individuals and firms with limited working capital. Credit used to acquire backup equipment may displace borrowing for inventory, machinery or expansion. The industrial figures show the scale. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) reported alternative-power expenditure of about N1.35 trillion in 2025, against N1.11 trillion in 2024. That represents an increase of roughly 21.6 per cent, illustrating the growing resources factories commit to maintaining operations outside dependable grid supply. The association’s earlier review, reported by THISDAY, put 2024 manufacturing capacity utilisation at 57 per cent. Electricity is not the sole explanation for industrial weakness: financing costs, demand, foreign exchange and insecurity also matter. But expensive, unpredictable power compounds those difficulties and makes production planning harder. Large companies can spread backup costs across bigger operations, but cannot make them disappear. Fuel purchases, maintenance, voltage-related equipment damage and interrupted production affect competitiveness. Some costs pass through to consumers as higher prices; others reduce profits, investment, or the capacity to retain workers. The national consequences accumulate through these individual decisions. Businesses postpone expansion, entrepreneurs avoid electricity-intensive activities, and domestic products face stronger competition from goods manufactured under more reliable conditions. Agriculture loses opportunities in processing and cold storage, while hospitals, laboratories, and schools divert scarce resources to keep essential equipment running. The World Bank estimated in 2021 that unreliable electricity imposed annual economic losses of $26.2 billion, equivalent then to approximately two per cent of GDP. This remains a historical estimate, not a measure of today’s losses, but it demonstrates the longstanding development cost of electricity failure. Former power minister and Geometric Power chairman, Professor Barth Nnaji, identifies infrastructure deficits, revenue losses, liquidity problems, and inadequate investment as central constraints. His intervention also highlights an uncomfortable financing question: electricity suppliers cannot sustain investment indefinitely when approved revenues or unpaid subsidies fail to cover legitimate costs. However, cost-reflective pricing requires credible service obligations. Consumers need accurate meters, transparent charges and enforceable remedies when promised supply fails. Raising tariffs without improving reliability risks transferring more of the sector’s inefficiencies to households and businesses already paying for alternative electricity. The administration’s response includes proposed East and West Super Grids, intended to increase transmission capacity from about 5,000MW to 19,000MW within two years. The government has also reported payments towards outstanding sector obligations. These measures address recognised constraints, but procurement approvals and financial settlements must translate into functioning assets and sustained supply. Decentralised electricity offers another route. The World Bank approved the $750 million DARES programme in December 2023, targeting improved or new access for 17.5 million Nigerians and reliable electricity for up to 237,000 micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Those figures are programme objectives, not evidence that every intended beneficiary has already received power. Despite the opportunities created by the Electricity Act 2023, some state governments appear reluctant to commit substantial resources to power infrastructure, even with the enormous revenues flowing into their coffers. Establishing electricity markets and regulatory agencies will achieve little without investment, credible partnerships and sustained implementation. For governors, the test is whether increased revenues translate into reliable electricity for homes and businesses; continued dependence on Abuja merely prolongs the crisis and raises questions about their spending priorities. With the general election approaching, the gap between commitments and experience has become politically sharper. Former vice-president Atiku Abubakar has accused the administration of substituting announcements for delivery. Such criticism serves an electoral purpose, but the underlying performance question remains legitimate: are consumers receiving more reliable, affordable electricity? Tinubu inherited deep structural failures. His administration nevertheless bears responsibility for the effectiveness and pace of its response. Decisive evidence will be fewer interruptions, better metering, financially credible operators, and lower dependence on generators. Accountability also requires publishing disturbance investigations, repair schedules and verified service performance. Without accessible evidence, consumers cannot judge whether spending improves reliability or merely finances recurring emergencies. Regulators must link commercial recovery to measurable operational gains, ensuring paying customers receive clearer explanations of failures and a credible timetable for lasting improvements in supply. For Nigerians, electricity reform becomes meaningful when it protects livelihoods. Until then, every blackout carries a bill beyond the meter: lost income, weakened businesses and development postponed.