The Unjust Burden: Reclaiming Accountability for Nigeria's Electricity Infrastructure.

■ Introduction
In the intricate tapestry of Nigeria's socio-economic landscape, few threads are as frayed and frustrating as the nation's perennial electricity crisis. Beyond the well-documented challenges of insufficient generation and transmission, a deeply entrenched and inequitable practice continues to plague ordinary citizens: the expectation, and often demand, for communities to fund the repair or replacement of critical electricity infrastructure, such as burnt transformers. This issue is not merely an inconvenience; it represents a fundamental breach of service provider responsibility and a significant impediment to sustainable energy development in Nigeria.

■ The Foundational Principle: Provider's Prerogative and Duty

From a professional and legal standpoint, the ownership and maintenance of electricity distribution assets, including transformers, unequivocally rest with the licensed electricity distribution companies (DisCos). The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) framework, aligned with global utility standards, establishes that DisCos are responsible for:

1. Asset Ownership and Stewardship: DisCos acquire and manage the physical infrastructure that delivers electricity to end-users. This ownership naturally confers the responsibility for their upkeep, repair, and replacement when necessary.

2. Tariff Recovery for Operations: The tariffs paid by electricity consumers are designed to cover the entire value chain of electricity provision – from generation and transmission to distribution, which includes operational costs, maintenance, and capital expenditure for infrastructure development and renewal. When consumers pay their bills, they are implicitly contributing to these costs.

3. Technical Competence and Safety: The repair and replacement of high-voltage electrical equipment demand specialized technical expertise, certified personnel, and adherence to stringent safety protocols. These are capabilities inherent to a utility company, not to individual citizens or community groups. Engaging untrained personnel in such repairs poses significant safety risks and can compromise the integrity of the entire grid.

4. Equity and Public Service: Electricity is a public utility, and its reliable provision is a fundamental expectation. Burdening communities with the cost of infrastructure repair for shared assets creates a deeply inequitable system, forcing a few to pay for a service meant for the many.

■ The Nigerian Anomaly: Why the Burden Shifts.

Despite these clear principles, the phenomenon of communities contributing to infrastructure repairs is a widespread and enduring challenge in Nigeria. Several interwoven factors contribute to this anomaly:

1. Legacy of Underinvestment and Decaying Infrastructure: Decades of inadequate investment in the power sector have resulted in an aging, dilapidated, and overstressed electricity infrastructure. Transformers, cables, and other components often operate beyond their design life, leading to frequent breakdowns.

2. Weak Maintenance Culture: A prevailing culture of reactive, rather than proactive, maintenance within some DisCos means that repairs are often undertaken only after complete system failure, which is typically more costly and disruptive. Preventive maintenance, which could extend asset life and reduce outages, is often neglected.

3. Financial Constraints and Viability Issues: DisCos frequently cite financial challenges, including tariff shortfalls (where tariffs do not reflect the true cost of service), high Aggregate Technical, Commercial, and Collection (ATC&C) losses due to theft, meter bypass, and inefficient collection, as reasons for their inability to fund repairs. While some of these challenges are legitimate, questions often arise regarding the efficiency of their operations and the judicious use of existing revenues.

4. Corruption and Mismanagement: Allegations of corruption and mismanagement of funds earmarked for infrastructure development and maintenance within the power sector are persistent. This diversion of resources exacerbates the funding gap for essential repairs.

5. Regulatory Enforcement Gaps: While the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) has regulations in place to protect consumers, the enforcement of these regulations, particularly concerning service delivery and infrastructure maintenance obligations of the DisCos, has faced challenges. This can leave consumers with limited recourse when DisCos fail to meet their responsibilities.

6. Community Self-Help and Desperation: Faced with prolonged darkness and the economic consequences of power outages, communities often resort to pooling resources to repair faulty equipment. This acts as a desperate, self-imposed solution to a problem that is not theirs, inadvertently normalizing the practice and absolving the service provider of their core duty.

■ Consequences of an Unjust System

The practice of citizens paying for infrastructure repairs has several detrimental consequences:

1. Erosion of Trust: It erodes public trust in the utility providers and regulatory bodies, fueling perceptions of impunity and exploitation.

2. Economic Strain: It places an undue economic burden on households and businesses, diverting funds that could be used for other essential needs or productive investments.

3. Disincentive for Investment: It potentially discourages necessary capital investment by DisCos, as the cost burden is effectively transferred to consumers.

4. Perpetuation of Poor Service: It creates a cycle where communities pay for repairs, enabling DisCos to continue operating with inadequate maintenance budgets and practices, leading to recurrent failures.

■ Charting a Course Towards Accountability and Sustainability

Addressing this critical aspect of Nigeria's power sector requires a concerted and multi-pronged approach:

1. Robust Regulatory Enforcement: NERC must strengthen its oversight and enforcement mechanisms. This includes holding DisCos strictly accountable to their performance agreements, imposing clear penalties for non-compliance with maintenance obligations, and ensuring that funds from tariffs are appropriately utilized for infrastructure.

2. Transparency and Financial Prudence: DisCos must operate with greater transparency in their financial dealings and demonstrate prudency in managing their revenues. Independent audits and public disclosure of maintenance expenditures are crucial.

3. Targeted Infrastructure Investment: There is an urgent need for significant, transparent, and well-managed investment in modernizing and expanding Nigeria's electricity infrastructure. This could involve public-private partnerships, incentivized foreign direct investment, and a clearer framework for cost recovery that encourages genuine investment.

4. Strengthening Consumer Rights and Redress Mechanisms: Consumers need accessible and effective channels to report issues, demand service, and seek redress when their rights are violated.

■ Consumer advocacy groups play a vital role in this.

1. Addressing Root Causes of Losses: Efforts to combat electricity theft, meter bypass, and improve billing and collection efficiencies are paramount to improving the financial health of DisCos, thereby enabling them to fulfill their responsibilities without resorting to community levies.

2. Promoting a Maintenance Culture: DisCos must shift from a reactive to a proactive maintenance culture, investing in predictive maintenance technologies and adequately training their technical workforce.

■ Conclusion

The professionalization of Nigeria's electricity sector demands that the fundamental principle of service provider responsibility for infrastructure maintenance is upheld without compromise. Until the burden of a broken system is squarely placed on the shoulders of those contractually and legally obligated to fix it, the vision of a reliable and equitable power supply for all Nigerians will remain an elusive dream.