A fresh debate has emerged over Nigeria’s electricity sector financing model following allegations that successive government interventions running into trillions of naira may be addressing the same set of debts without clear evidence of final settlement.
The controversy was reignited after media aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Phrank Shaibu, claimed on Trust TV that repeated funding announcements in the power sector raise serious questions about transparency, sequencing, and accountability.
Shaibu said the discussion followed a post–Democracy Day interaction involving Atiku Abubakar, during which the former vice president reportedly questioned the substance of government claims around electricity sector reforms and debt clearance.
At the centre of the controversy is a series of interventions spanning late 2025 to mid-2026 that, according to Shaibu, appear to target the same GenCo liabilities through escalating financial commitments.
The timeline begins with a ₦509 billion bond announced in December 2025, intended to offset verified debts owed to electricity generation companies.
By January 2026, officials reportedly said about ₦501 billion had been subscribed, a development initially seen as progress toward clearing outstanding obligations.
However, Shaibu argues that instead of concluding the process, the government escalated it further.
In April 2026, a ₦3.3 trillion intervention package was reportedly approved for the same category of power sector debts, significantly expanding the scale of fiscal exposure.
The debate intensified again in June 2026 when reports emerged of a proposed ₦4 trillion facility aimed at further addressing GenCo-related obligations.
For critics, the recurring nature of these interventions suggests a pattern where new funding streams are introduced before previous ones are conclusively reconciled.
Shaibu described the development as a troubling cycle of “new funds for old debts,” arguing that the continuity of liabilities raises questions about whether earlier interventions achieved their intended outcomes.
The core of the controversy now rests on unresolved financial questions, including: who ultimately received the ₦509 billion bond proceeds, whether the ₦501 billion subscription was fully disbursed to GenCos, how much of the ₦3.3 trillion has actually been paid out, why the same debt stock persists despite multiple interventions and where the official reconciliation ledger of beneficiaries and payments can be found
Stakeholders in the electricity generation sector have also been cited in the debate as continuing to report arrears, further complicating the narrative around settlement progress.
Nigeria’s power sector has long relied on government-backed interventions to manage liquidity pressures across the electricity value chain. However, the current dispute has shifted attention from the existence of interventions to their effectiveness and closure.
Shaibu argues that the pattern reflects not isolated policy actions, but a recurring refinancing loop in which obligations are repeatedly restructured without full liquidation.
He warned that such a structure risks eroding public trust in economic reforms, especially if transparency around disbursement and settlement remains limited.
At the time of reporting, there was no official response from the Presidency or the Ministry of Power addressing the specific claims or figures raised.
The controversy comes amid broader national concerns over rising public debt exposure, fiscal pressure, and the sustainability of repeated interventionist funding in critical sectors of the economy.
Beyond political disagreement, the unfolding debate has revived a fundamental national issue:
whether Nigeria’s power sector financing framework is delivering genuine debt resolution — or merely extending a cycle of refinancing under different labels.
For now, that question remains unresolved, even as the scale of intervention continues to rise into the trillions.
