A fresh battle over the control of Nigeria’s electricity sector is brewing, as state electricity regulators have accused the National Assembly of attempting to claw back powers already devolved to states under the Constitution and the Electricity Act 2023. In a strongly worded memorandum submitted to the Senate Committee on Power and obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, electricity regulatory commissions and bureaus from 16 states warned that the proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 could reverse one of the most significant reforms in Nigeria’s power sector.
The regulators argued that the amendment bill, rather than strengthening the electricity market, seeks to restore extensive federal oversight over matters they insist have constitutionally become the responsibility of states. The concerns were contained in a letter dated May 26, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Power and signed on behalf of the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Bureaus.
Signatories to the document included the chairmen and chief executives of electricity regulators in Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Kogi, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and Plateau states. The regulators said they had taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to begin building sub-national electricity markets and had already engaged investors based on the framework created by the law.
According to the regulators, the areas of disagreement include the authorisation of State Houses of Assembly to legislate on electricity matters, the supremacy of state laws within state electricity markets, and provisions seeking to retain federal control over all activities connected to the national grid.
Other disputed clauses relate to restrictions on states’ participation in the wholesale electricity market, matters concerning the Nigerian Wholesale Electricity Market, the authority of states over independent transmission and distribution networks, and the establishment and administration of the Power Consumers Assistance Fund.
The regulators also raised concerns over the proposed expansion of the powers of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, the structure and decisions of the Forum of Electricity Regulators, and the provision granting the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission final administrative appellate jurisdiction on certain issues arising within the forum.
They further opposed provisions designating electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply as essential services, as well as clauses dealing with government-owned enterprises as licensees and obligations to host communities. Additional areas of contention include the regulation of intra-state electricity matters that may have implications for the national grid, the imposition of timelines and phased conditions for states transitioning into independent electricity markets, and proposed federal oversight on consumer protection, anti-trust measures and tariff design within state electricity jurisdictions.
The regulators argued that the disputed provisions require further consultation to ensure that the decentralisation objectives of the Electricity Act are not weakened by subsequent amendments. “A review of the Bill suggests that the general intention is to reverse the devolution of legislative, governance and regulatory powers over electricity matters that occur solely within the respective states to the state governments, in favour of a reconsolidation of powers at the federal level, with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission retaining full supervisory powers over the market.
Effectively, it appears that the intention of the Bill is that Nigeria should continue with the same regime that, for 20 years, has not led to any significant increase in power availability or per capita consumption for Nigerians, despite ever-increasing (and unsustainable) federal debt.” At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of the constitutional amendments that allowed states to legislate on electricity matters within their territories.
The regulators argued that the proposed amendment bill wrongly assumes that state legislatures derive their powers from the National Assembly rather than directly from the Constitution. According to them, any attempt by the National Assembly to grant, restrict or redefine those powers through ordinary legislation would amount to a constitutional violation.