NIGERIA’S electricity crisis is increasingly becoming a crisis of public accounting. Several Nigerian newspapers reported on May 17, 2024, that the Federal Government had approved the gradual payment of about ₦3.3 trillion owed to generation companies and gas suppliers. Then, on April 6, 2026, the State House said the Presidency had approved another ₦3.3 trillion payment plan, this time describing it as a full and final settlement of legacy debts accumulated between February 2015 and March 2025. The striking similarity between the May 17, 2024 and April 6, 2026 statements immediately raised suspicions as to whether these were separate commitments or merely different descriptions of the same obligation. In between, the Federal Government also established a separate debt-reduction bond programme of up to ₦4 trillion for verified arrears in the power sector. Taken at face value, these announcements have created the public impression of about ₦10.6 trillion in interventions within two years. But is that truly three separate commitments, or are some of them different stages of the same resolution process?

That question matters because trust in reform depends not only on action, but on clarity. When government repeatedly announces large rescue figures in a sector that remains visibly distressed, it owes the public more than broad assurances. Nigerians need to know what exactly was approved, what liabilities were covered, what instrument was used, what sum has actually been raised, what has already been paid, and what balance remains outstanding. Without that, each new announcement sounds less like progress and more like a recycling of figures to get new headlines. The April 6, 2026 State House statement was detailed but did not fully clarify matters. It said the ₦3.3 trillion represented a full and final settlement after verification of legacy debts. It also stated that 15 power plants had signed settlement agreements worth ₦2.3 trillion, that ₦501 billion had already been raised, and that ₦223 billion had been disbursed. Those are concrete figures. Yet they do not by themselves answer the obvious public question: how does this 2026 settlement relate to the May 2024 approval of roughly ₦3.3 trillion owed to GenCos and gas suppliers? Are they the same liabilities at different stages of verification and payment, or are they separate obligations altogether?

The bond programme added yet another layer to an already confusing debt narrative. Official statements by the Ministry of Information and the State House show that the Presidential Power Sector Debt Reduction Programme was approved in August 2025, authorising up to ₦4 trillion in government-backed bonds to settle verified arrears owed to generation companies and gas suppliers. By October 2025, the Federal Government said it had finalised the implementation framework with GenCos. In December 2025, it announced the debut issuance under the programme: a ₦590 billion Series 1 bond, launched as part of a first phase targeting ₦1.23 trillion by the first quarter of 2026. Then, on January 27, 2026, the State House said the inaugural tranche had recorded 100 percent subscription, with ₦501 billion closed under Series 1, comprising ₦300 billion raised from the capital market and ₦201 billion allotted to participating GenCos. Even after accounting for differences between the overall programme ceiling, the initial issuance size, and the amount ultimately subscribed in the first tranche, the public record still needs clearer reconciliation than it has received so far.

The deeper problem is not communication alone. These debts did not arise by accident. By the Presidency’s own account, the liquidity crisis reflects years of unfunded tariff shortfalls that have accumulated across the electricity value chain. In July 2025, the Presidency said the Federal Government’s verified exposure to GenCos stood at about ₦4 trillion as of April 2025. By February 2026, GenCos were publicly speaking of about ₦6.5 trillion in outstanding sector debt, and by March 2026, some industry figures had put the burden at roughly ₦6.8 trillion. This is not just a bookkeeping disagreement. It is evidence of a market that has not been paying its way. That is why the real scandal in the power sector is not debt alone, but opacity around debt. The system is trapped in a vicious cycle: debts weaken generators, weakened generators struggle to pay gas suppliers and maintain plants, poor supply worsens collections and public resistance; then government returns with another rescue mechanism. Every intervention is presented as a reset, yet the underlying structure remains fragile.

The nation remains in darkness, generation remains stagnant, and distribution remains comatose. The sector is kept alive by periodic announcements rather than durable structural repair. Above all, the varied bailout announcements increasingly create the image of a bottomless pit of public bailouts. What Nigerians need now is a transparent public ledger. How much is the nation owing the GenCos? How did the debts accumulate? Are there obligations the GenCos and the wider electricity supply system also owe the Nigerian people that ought to count in any full public accounting? How much ground has the country really covered with the apparent ₦10.6 trillion intervention?

The Federal Government should publish, in one reconciled document, the full stock of liabilities across the electricity value chain: who is owed, what has been verified, what remains disputed, what portion will be paid in cash, what portion will be securitised, what has already been disbursed, and what balance is still outstanding. It should also explain how these debts accumulated: tariff gaps, subsidy arrears, remittance failures, gas-payment shortfalls, and governance failures across the market. Without that clarity, the public cannot distinguish genuine reform from accounting fog.

Nigeria’s electricity crisis is therefore also a test of fiscal candour. Blackouts are the visible symptom. Opacity is the institutional disease. Government may indeed be trying to clean up a decade of inherited liabilities. But in a sector this broken, transparency is not optional; it is the first proof of seriousness. Until Nigerians are shown a coherent and verifiable account of what is owed, what has been paid, and what remains to be fixed, every new bailout headline will continue to raise the same uncomfortable question: is Nigeria funding electricity reform or merely financing opacity?

Phased interventions may be legitimate, but only when they are transparently reconciled.

Copyright © 2026 Nigerian Tribune Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).