Business
NERC: No electricity customer should pay more than metered neigbours
The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) says the Federal Government introduced the capping in the estimated billing for unmetered customers to ensure uniformity with their metered counterparts.
Commissioner in charge of Legal, Licensing and Compliance, Mr Dafe Akpeneye, said this at a web conference organised by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), adding that the development was temporary because no customer should pay more than their metered neighbours in the same vicinity and under a similar classification.
He also said that since the Discos failed in their responsibility to meter customers, the only option was to resort to estimation.
He said, “The issue of estimated billing came about as a bridge to manage the interests of the utilities’ interest of providing power and the customers’ interest of paying for power.
“Under an ideal situation, the meter is an assurance that the utility should get paid for what it delivers and the customer pays for what he consumes. But we have found ourselves in a situation whereby when the assets were handed over, metering wasn’t a priority when the utilities were owned by the Federal Government.
“And if you look at the Nigerian demographics, with the way the population is expanding, rapid urbanisation with new connections coming to the grid, the metering of these customers has become a problem.
“One of the key requirements is for the Discos to bridge the metering gap because the problem we had to deal with was because of their inability to do that on time. We had to balance the fact that customers receive power without meter and devise a way to make sure customers have electricity without having a meter.
“Therefore, the estimated billing methodology was introduced . But that was supposed to be temporary, certain things were not done. So, estimated billing became the number one consumer complaint in the industry.”
The NERC stated that exiting the estimated billing regime is impossible for now, adding that since it is not practicable to meter everyone at once, the practice will continue for a while until the issues are resolved.
“Because we realised that meters can’t be rolled out for everyone, something had to be done to balance it out. Some measure of fair estimation had to be put in place.
“The commission developed the capping order. What this seeks to try to create is parity between metered customers and unmetered customers. So, we have someone who lives in a duplex in a certain part of town who is unmetered and we created a scenario whereby one who is unmetered does not pay more than the metered, so that they both pay almost the same thing,” he added.
In his intervention, the Director General, Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), Mr Alex Okoh, said the privatisation of the power sector in Nigeria remains the most ambitious of its type in Africa.
According to him, though the sector is not where it should be because of lack of investments, it has improved since it was handed over to private individuals to manage.
He said, “South Africa has 4,904 kwh per capita while Nigeria has 300kwh per capita. Now for the biggest economy in Africa, that says a lot.
“This sort of challenges prompted the bold decision to reform the power sector. So, in 2005, ESPRA was enacted and essentially was geared towards breaking the monopoly of NEPA.
“It was also to make the sector attractive. That particular action led to the unbundling to Gencos, TCN and Discos. Prior to this , electricity was generally poor. We are talking 1,500mw across the value chain.
“Post-privatisation, we have seen significant improvement and impact of privatisation of the power sector. We are just 10 years.
“There are interventions that are currently going on to correct some of the shortcomings of the privatisation exercise. Let’s not also forget that the power sector privatisation in Nigeria is perhaps the biggest privatisation programme in the continent of Africa.
“Were we rather overambitious in this privatisation. I don’t think so. Could we have taken a modulated approach to it? Maybe. But I think the decision was bold to address the lack of investment in the sector.”
In his remarks, former Minister of Power, Prof. Barth Nnaji, said government must strive to draw private sector investment to ensure sustainable supply of power.
He stated that with the right environment, the Discos can conveniently pay for power, as was shown by Eko and a few others at a point, adding that the bulk trading arrangement should be jettisoned once the Discos become credit worthy.
Auto
Omoda, Jaecoo Shake Global Auto Market, Hit One Million Sales in Three Years
Omoda, Jaecoo Shake Global Auto Market, Hit One Million Sales in Three Years
Chinese automotive brands Omoda and Jaecoo are rapidly reshaping the global automobile industry, posting remarkable sales growth and displacing long-established competitors in key markets barely three years after their debut.
Owned by Chinese auto giant Chery, the sister brands have emerged as two of the world’s fastest-growing vehicle marques, recording more than one million cumulative sales across 64 countries by April 2026 while making significant inroads into mature markets traditionally dominated by legacy manufacturers.
Their most striking success has come in the United Kingdom, one of Europe’s most competitive and brand-conscious automotive markets. After entering the UK in 2024, the brands recorded 48,087 new vehicle registrations in 2025, accounting for 2.38 per cent of the market.
The performance placed Omoda and Jaecoo ahead of several long-established manufacturers that have spent decades building customer loyalty in the country.
Driving much of the momentum is the Jaecoo 7 SUV, which finished 2025 as the UK’s fourth most popular retail vehicle before going on to become the country’s best-selling new car in March 2026. It has also ranked as the UK’s third best-selling new car so far in 2026.
Within just 19 months of launching in Britain, the two brands had surpassed 80,000 cumulative vehicle sales, underlining their rapid acceptance among consumers.
Their success extends well beyond the UK.
In Europe, Omoda and Jaecoo sold more than 340,000 vehicles in less than two years by June 2026, earning recognition from industry observers as the continent’s fastest-growing automotive brands.
Australia has witnessed a similar trend. Barely a year after their launch in May 2025, the brands crossed the 10,000-unit sales mark, while the Jaecoo J5 emerged as the country’s best-selling small electric SUV in May 2026.
The brands have also recorded notable achievements in Asia and South America. In Thailand, the Jaecoo J5 topped the country’s electric vehicle sales rankings for six consecutive months, while in Brazil, the Jaecoo 7 Hybrid was named the country’s “Hybrid of the Year.”
Industry analysts attribute the brands’ rapid rise to a combination of striking design, advanced technology, generous standard features and competitive pricing that offers consumers strong value compared with many established rivals.
Safety credentials have also strengthened consumer confidence. Both the Jaecoo 7 and the Omoda 5 have earned five-star ratings from Euro NCAP, Europe’s independent vehicle safety assessment authority, helping to reassure buyers who may be unfamiliar with the brands.
Although many traditional manufacturers still enjoy stronger heritage and decades of brand recognition, industry observers say buying decisions are increasingly being driven by value, technology, design and safety rather than brand familiarity alone.
That shift has created opportunities for newer entrants such as Omoda and Jaecoo, whose rapid global expansion suggests that the automotive landscape is undergoing a significant transformation.
For emerging markets such as Nigeria, where Chinese automobile brands are steadily gaining acceptance, the performance of Omoda and Jaecoo offers another indication of the growing influence of Chinese manufacturers in the global automotive industry.
Business
Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria
Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria
South African companies with identifiable business interests estimated at about N20.43 trillion in Nigeria are facing growing uncertainty as pressure mounts on the Federal Government to take stronger action over renewed xenophobic attacks against Nigerians in South Africa.
The renewed violence has triggered calls for economic retaliation, with lawmakers, student groups and other stakeholders urging the government to consider measures against South African businesses operating in Nigeria.
The calls followed reports of attacks on foreign nationals, killings, looting of businesses and the displacement of Nigerians in different parts of South Africa.
The Federal Government has so far focused largely on diplomatic engagement and measures to protect Nigerians in the country, including the evacuation of 1,490 Nigerians from South Africa in five phases between June 10 and July 15.
Nigeria has also continued to press South African authorities to strengthen protection for Nigerians and other foreign nationals and ensure that those responsible for attacks are brought to justice.
The latest dispute has, however, renewed scrutiny of the extensive South African investments in Nigeria, which span telecommunications, banking, insurance, retail, hospitality, logistics, aviation, manufacturing and property-related businesses.
The estimated N20.43tn figure is based largely on publicly available market capitalisation, asset and property valuations of major South African-linked businesses operating in Nigeria. It should not be interpreted as the precise value of South Africa’s foreign direct investment stock in Nigeria.
Calls for retaliation
Pressure for economic retaliation intensified after South African authorities ruled out compensation for Nigerians who abandoned businesses and properties during the latest wave of xenophobic violence.
Senator Adams Oshiomhole called on the Federal Government to consider appropriating profits made by South African companies operating in Nigeria if South Africa failed to compensate Nigerian victims.
Oshiomhole argued that Nigerian authorities should explore stronger economic measures to protect the interests of citizens affected by xenophobic attacks.
READ ALSO:
- Osun APC Rally Shooting: Police Release Environment Commissioner on Bail
- After Cameroon Heartbreak, Falcons Battle Banyana Thursday for World Cup Lifeline
- Biden condition deteriorates as cancer spreads to bones
The proposal, however, has not become government policy, while the Senate subsequently rejected the idea of using profits from South African companies in Nigeria to compensate victims.
The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has also threatened protests against major South African-linked businesses, including MTN and MultiChoice, in response to the attacks on Nigerians.
The growing calls have raised concerns about whether the diplomatic dispute could eventually spill into Nigeria’s business environment.
Nigerians killed in South Africa
The renewed violence has also resulted in deaths.
Among those killed were Amaramiro Emmanuel and Ekpenyong Andrew, who died in separate incidents in April.
Two other Nigerians, Emeka Iroegbu and Musa Joe, were reported killed in separate incidents on June 28.
By late July, reports indicated that at least four Nigerians had been killed during the latest wave of violence, while Nigerian officials said many more Nigerians had suffered harassment, intimidation, property losses and other forms of abuse.
The Nigerian government subsequently intensified its response, including the voluntary evacuation programme that returned 1,490 Nigerians from South Africa.
The evacuation was coordinated through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nigerian High Commission in Pretoria, the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission and other government agencies.
South African businesses in Nigeria
South Africa’s commercial presence in Nigeria extends well beyond the brands most familiar to consumers.
The most prominent South African-linked companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange are MTN Nigeria Communications Plc and Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc.
MTN Nigeria is one of the largest companies on the Nigerian Exchange by market value, while Stanbic IBTC is a major player in Nigeria’s banking and financial services industry.
Other South African-linked interests in Nigeria include Rand Merchant Bank, Sanlam, Alexander Forbes, Broll Property Group, Metrofile, PEP, Mr Price, Pick n Pay, Nampak and businesses associated with the hospitality, aviation and manufacturing sectors.
Some companies commonly described as South African businesses have, however, undergone ownership changes over the years.
For instance, Protea Hotels, which has South African origins, is now part of Marriott International’s global hotel network. Some Nigerian operations also involve local investment partners.
This makes it necessary to distinguish between companies with South African origins, companies controlled by South African parent groups and businesses that still have substantial South African ownership.
How the N20.43tn figure was calculated
The estimated N20.43tn value of South African-linked interests in Nigeria is largely derived from the market values and publicly available asset information of major companies.
MTN Nigeria and Stanbic IBTC account for the bulk of the figure when their respective market capitalisations are considered.
However, market capitalisation should not be treated as the amount of money invested by a foreign parent company.
Both MTN Nigeria and Stanbic IBTC are publicly listed Nigerian companies with shares held by Nigerian and international investors.
Consequently, any action targeted at the companies could affect not only South African interests but also Nigerian shareholders, pension funds, employees, customers, suppliers and government revenues.
Nigeria maintains diplomatic pressure
Despite the growing calls for retaliation, the Federal Government has continued to pursue diplomatic channels.
South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola visited Abuja as President Cyril Ramaphosa’s special envoy amid efforts to ease tensions between the two countries.
The discussions focused on the safety of Nigerians and other foreign nationals in South Africa, migration issues and the broader state of Nigeria-South Africa relations.
Nigeria has maintained that South Africa must do more to prevent xenophobic attacks and protect Nigerians legally resident in the country.
South Africa, for its part, has reiterated its opposition to xenophobia, racism and discrimination while insisting that criminality should not be associated with nationality.
The dispute has also generated concerns over compensation for Nigerians who lost businesses and property while fleeing the violence.
South African authorities have rejected calls for government compensation, arguing that the state cannot compensate individuals for private property abandoned during the unrest.
Economic stakes for both countries
Any decision by Nigeria to retaliate against South African companies could have consequences for both countries.
MTN Nigeria, for example, provides telecommunications services to millions of Nigerians and employs thousands of people directly and indirectly through its wider supply chain.
Stanbic IBTC also has a significant presence in Nigeria’s banking, investment and financial services sectors.
Any disruption to their operations could therefore affect consumers, workers, shareholders, suppliers and government tax revenues.
South Africa also has significant economic interests in Nigeria, making the relationship important to businesses in both countries.
The situation has consequently placed the Federal Government in a difficult position: responding firmly to xenophobic attacks against Nigerians while avoiding measures that could undermine jobs, investments and economic stability at home.
For now, Nigeria appears to be relying on diplomatic pressure, consular intervention and the protection of affected citizens rather than imposing broad economic sanctions.
But as calls for retaliation continue to grow, the future of South African investments in Nigeria could become a major factor in the increasingly tense relationship between Africa’s two largest economies.
Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria
Business
NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity
NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity
The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has proposed comprehensive new regulations aimed at eliminating anti-competitive practices, including fuel price-fixing, market allocation, bid-rigging, and artificial scarcity, across the country’s midstream and downstream petroleum industry. The draft framework, released for public consultation on August 6, 2026, comes amid growing concerns over coordinated pricing among major fuel importers and follows allegations that some operators were selling imported Premium Motor Spirit at prices significantly above locally refined alternatives from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery.
The proposed Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Prevention of Anti-Competitive Practices and Behaviour Regulations, 2026, if adopted, would prohibit petroleum companies from entering into any formal or informal agreements that prevent, restrict, or distort competition. The NMDPRA, in a public notice issued on Thursday, invited licensees, permit holders, and other stakeholders to submit comments on the draft regulations within 21 days, in compliance with Section 216(1) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, which requires stakeholder consultation before regulations are finalised. The notice, signed by the Authority’s Chief Executive, Rabiu A. Umar, directed industry participants to review the draft on the NMDPRA website and submit observations through the prescribed format. A stakeholders’ consultation forum has been scheduled for September 22, 2026, at the Authority’s headquarters in Abuja, where industry players, civil society organisations, and consumer groups will have the opportunity to provide direct input on the proposed framework.
The draft regulations target a wide range of coordinated conduct that could harm competition and disadvantage consumers. Under Part IV, titled “Collusive Agreements and Anti-Competitive Coordination,” the framework states that “No licensee, market participant, or group of undertakings in the midstream or downstream petroleum sector shall enter into any agreement, arrangement, understanding, or concerted practice, whether formal or informal, written or oral, explicit or tacit, that has the object or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition.” The regulations specifically identify price-fixing or coordinated pricing behaviour as prohibited, including agreements on pump prices, ex-depot prices, margins, discounts, surcharges, freight charges, and pricing benchmarks. If approved, petroleum companies would no longer be permitted to jointly set commercial terms that influence retail fuel prices, a practice that has historically kept pump prices artificially high even when global crude prices decline.
READ ALSO:
- Tinubu Approves Recruitment of 3,252 Verified PTA Teachers into Federal Civil Service
- Osun Govt Sues EFCC, First Bank for ₦2 Billion Over Unlawful Account Freeze
- Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship, ‘Birth Tourism’
The proposed framework also seeks to outlaw market allocation arrangements, where competitors divide customers, geographical territories, product lines, or supply areas among themselves instead of competing openly for market share. Additionally, the regulations would prohibit bid-rigging and collusive tendering in procurement processes, as well as collective supply restrictions where companies jointly reduce production, imports, throughput, or product supply to create artificial scarcity or manipulate market conditions. Such practices have been a longstanding concern in Nigeria’s petroleum sector, where consumers have frequently faced fuel queues and sudden price hikes that appear disconnected from global market trends. The NMDPRA is also targeting tacit collusion and price signalling, including the use of public statements, trade association meetings, or indirect communications to influence competitors’ pricing decisions or exchange commercially sensitive information such as future pricing plans, production schedules, customer lists, and bidding strategies.
Beyond pricing and supply coordination, the regulations aim to prevent restrictive commercial arrangements that could limit market access for smaller operators and independent marketers. The draft proposes restrictions on exclusive supply agreements, excessively long-term contracts, and take-or-pay obligations that effectively lock buyers into a single supplier, thereby reducing their ability to source fuel from more competitive alternatives. The Authority also plans to scrutinise tying and bundling arrangements, where companies with significant market power require dealers or buyers to purchase unrelated products or services as a condition for accessing fuel supply or infrastructure services. These practices, according to the draft regulations, could stifle the growth of independent marketers and reduce consumer choice in the downstream market.
To strengthen enforcement, the regulations empower the NMDPRA to monitor press releases, investor calls, trade association meetings, and public statements by dominant market players for possible anti-competitive coordination. The Authority would also be authorised to investigate suspected anti-competitive practices and work alongside the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) on competition-related matters, ensuring a coordinated regulatory approach across Nigeria’s economic sectors. Under the proposed framework, companies found guilty of serious anti-competitive practices could face administrative fines of up to five per cent of their annual turnover from regulated petroleum activities in Nigeria, while persistent offenders risk suspension or revocation of their licences. Directors or managers directly involved in serious violations could face personal liability, management disqualification, or prosecution where applicable, signalling a tough stance on corporate misconduct.
The regulatory push comes amid renewed scrutiny of Nigeria’s downstream petroleum market following concerning developments in petrol pricing dynamics after the entry of the Dangote Petroleum Refinery. In July 2026, independent petroleum marketers accused major fuel importers, including AA Rano and Matrix, of selling imported petrol at coordinated prices around N1,350 per litre, significantly above what Dangote had been offering to marketers. The Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) argued that such practices defeated the purpose of import licences meant to encourage competition and moderate prices for Nigerian consumers. The allegations remain contested, and no regulatory finding of collusion has been published, but the incident has heightened public and official concern about the effectiveness of deregulation in delivering price benefits to consumers.
Official price data illustrate the pressure on regulators and the urgency of the proposed rules. National Bureau of Statistics figures show the average pump price surged from N1,034.76 per litre in January 2026 to N1,596.25 in May 2026, representing a 55.31 per cent rise over the same period in 2025. The NMDPRA has confirmed that the Dangote Petroleum Refinery accounted for 87.55 per cent of petrol supplied to the domestic market in May 2026, highlighting significant market concentration that could potentially enable dominant players to influence prices and supply conditions. The proposed regulations form part of broader reforms introduced under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, which expanded the role of regulators in promoting efficiency, transparency, and fair competition across Nigeria’s petroleum value chain, moving away from the opaque and subsidy-dependent system that characterised the sector for decades.
If adopted after stakeholder consultations, the new rules will provide the NMDPRA with a dedicated legal framework to investigate and sanction anti-competitive conduct while supporting a more transparent, competitive, and consumer-focused petroleum market. The regulations would also strengthen Nigeria’s position in the regional energy market by fostering a more predictable and investment-friendly environment for domestic and foreign investors. The Authority has also signalled interest in improving price transparency across the region, saying it is exploring pathways for establishing an African petroleum products reference price benchmark that reflects regional market realities and protects consumers from arbitrary pricing. Stakeholders have until August 27, 2026, to submit their comments, and the September 22 consultation forum is expected to generate robust debate on how best to balance competition, investment, and consumer protection in Nigeria’s evolving petroleum sector.
NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity
-
Sports2 days agoAfter Cameroon Heartbreak, Falcons Battle Banyana Thursday for World Cup Lifeline
-
Business2 days agoXenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria
-
metro2 days ago“I Begged for Years” – Nigerian Man Says Wife Never Forgave Him Over Social Media Incident
-
Politics2 days agoAregbesola: I’ve never slept with another woman since marriage
-
Politics1 day agoKeep Religion Out of Nigeria’s ‘Dirty Politics,’ Gumi Tells Jingir
-
metro2 days agoISWAP Executes Four Shura Council Members Amid Deepening Leadership Crisis
-
News22 hours agoTrump smuggled out of Turkey in catering truck over Iran threat
-
metro2 days ago$79 T-Shirt That Stays Fresh for 30 Days Without Washing? US Company Makes Bold Claim
You must be logged in to post a comment Login