Nigerian Authority Deny Plans To Increase Electricity Tariff

The Federal Government has no plans to increase electricity tariff as President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has not authorised such.
A presidential source disclosed yesterday that the President was also worried about the perception that the Federal Government is not respecting agreements reached over the privatisation processes.
According to the source, the President at a meeting with the Minister of Information and Communications, Mr. John Odey, and the Minister of State for Energy (Power), Hajia Fatimah Ibrahim, yesterday morning expressed displeasure over the announcement of the increase in the electricity tariff and the “distortion” in the purported revocation of the sale of Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) to Transnational Corporation (Transcorp).
“The President also asked Mr. Odey to hold a meeting and a joint press conference with Transcorp Chairman and Director General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Dr. Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, to tidy up the truth about the approval he gave from the disengagement of Transcorp from the sale NITEL/MTEL,” the source said.
THISDAY gathered that President Yar’Adua had to delay his trip to Maiduguri, Borno State by a few hours in order to meet the ministers.
“President Yar'Adua, at the meeting, expressed displeasure with the way the two ministers handled the issues,” the source said.
The Minister of Information and Communications had in a statement last weekend announced the revocation of the sale of the telecommunications firm to Transcorp.
A letter by Odey addressed to the Group Managing Director of Transcorp reads: “Following the failure of Transnational Corporation in the post-sale transaction of NITEL/M-TEL as contained in the Share Purchase Agreement signed between your organisation and the Federal Government through the Bureau of Public Enterprises; the Federal Government has taken a decision to reverse the sale in consonance with the relevant sections of the Agreement.
“This is also in addition to the withdrawal of your Technical Partners – British Telecoms – the act of which negates the Share Purchase Agreement.
“But in consideration of the fact that you are a Nigerian company and taking into cognisance your antecedents, the Federal Government has magnanimously approved your retention of ten per cent (10%) of the company’s share (NITEL/M-TEL).
“In the circumstance, I am to request you to keep in abeyance all actions pertaining to the operations of NITEL/M-TEL forthwith.
“By copy of this letter, the CEO’s of NITEL, M-TEL and BPE are hereby informed of this development and directed to note the above and ensure strict compliance.”
The Minister of State for Energy (Power) on her part had on Wednesday at the just concluded Nigerian Oil and Gas Conference in Abuja announced the increase in electricity tariff.
She had hinged the increase on attracting investment into the power sector, adding that the tariff, which currently stands at N6.00 per kilowatt per hour, had to be increased because potential private investors considered it very low.
She, however, did not state by how much the tariff would be increased but argued that for the country to develop the partnership with the private sector, there was the need to develop a competitive model to attract private investors.
The Presidency source said President Yar'Adua, at the meeting held at the Presidential Villa, Abuja directed Hajia Ibrahim to retract the statement.
The President, at the meeting, had said his government would not increase any tariff on electricity until there is stable power supply in the country.
According to the source, "the President invited the two ministers to explain their roles in the two issues. There is no plan to increase tariff on electricity and no such thing would be done until Nigerians can get stable power supply; that is the position of the President. He was very angry after reading the report on the increase and has asked the minister to retract her statement. Nigerians can be rest assured that no kobo will be added until they begin to enjoy stable electricity. And the President is working round the clock to ensure that.
“On the controversy over the revocation of the sale of NITEL to Transcorp, the President said he could not understand how what he approved was distorted in the media and directed Mr. Odey to hold a meeting and joint press conference with the Transcorp chairman, Dr. Okereke-Onyiuke.
“The President's approval tallied with what Transcorp had agreed with the Federal Government. The President does not understand where ‘revocation’ came from.
"This President believes that the best way to properly address the nation's economic challenges is through the Private Public Partnership (PPP). So, how can he take a decision that injures private investment? What the President approved on NITEL/MTEL was a decision already agreed between the Federal Government and Transcorp to rescue the telecommunications company that is very strategic for the nation.”
He said the President would soon address the nation on his efforts to redirect the economy.
Nigerians, he said, would appreciate what the President had spent the last eight months doing, adding that he had clear a direction on the power sector and would come out clearly with targets and timelines that would be met on power generation, transmission and distribution.
The emergency in the sector would also be declared soon and it would be far-reaching, not the type of thing most Nigerians envisage, the source said.
"What the President is coming out with is tied to the future of the country and not just the cosmetic approach or mere pronouncement. Yes, it is true the President promised he would declare emergency within three months of his administration. But having looked at the global picture in the sector when he came in, he realised he would be doing a disservice to the nation if he didn't take longer time to examine all the contending issues on ground and find lasting solutions to them," the source added.
The Special Adviser to the President on Communications, Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi, had told THISDAY on Wednesday that the revocation of the sale of NITEL to Transcorp had not been reversed, contrary to the impression created by the statement issued by Odey.
Adeniyi had said that the minister claimed that the media misquoted him on the issue.
According to Adeniyi, “I fail to understand where the story of the so-called reversal of NITEL/Mtel sales came from because I have spoken to the minister and he said he was misrepresented…I am aware of the issues concerning NITEL/Mtel and Transcorp and the various meetings that were held between the management and the government to address these problems which have been killing the company.
He had said the intervention “of the President on the issue followed petitions and appeals from several stakeholders, including the union and current management of Transcorp, who have shown very clearly that they need help. The approval of the President is not, and should therefore not be construed to mean reversal of the sale of Transcorp”.
Adeniyi had also said the two presidential approvals are: “One, that the Federal Government shares be diluted by 24 per cent and Transcorp Plc shares by 41 per cent to enable the new strategic investor secure 65 per cent controlling share holding. Two, that the Bureau of Public Enterprise, BPE, should undertake a transparent, public and sincere bidding for these divested shares.
“I am aware that Transcorp management has no problem with these decisions that were taken to protect the investors and help resolve some of the problems associated with the privatisation of the sales. Yes, it is true the President also directed that all allegations bordering on underhand dealings in the process leading to the privatisation be investigated by the relevant authorities. That is the correct position with regards to Transcorp so it is not accurate to use the word reversal because nothing has been reversed.”

President Yar’Adua Knows His Faith On Tuesday

Finally, the D-day is here. The Court of Appeal hearing the consolidated petition of the presidential candidate of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Major-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), and his Action Congress (AC) counterpart, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, against the election of President Umaru Yar’Adua will on Tuesday deliver judgment in the case.
Also, the Benue State Election Tribunal will deliver its verdict tomorrow in the petition against the Senate President, Senator David Mark, in the April 21 senatorial poll in the state.
The petition was filed by the ANPP candidate in the election, Alhaji Usman Abubakar.
When news filtered in yesterday that the presidential election tribunal had concluded plans to deliver judgment, the premises of the tribunal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja was besieged by supporters of parties to the suit.
Counsel to Buhari, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN); his Atiku counterpart, Mr. Emeka Ngige (SAN); and Yar’Adua’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), all expressed satisfaction with the development, saying they were keeping their fingers crossed.
They had all adopted their written addresses last week in the midst of the strike embarked upon by judicial workers in the country which had initially affected the case and crippled activities in other courts.
Atiku and Buhari are contesting the result of the April 21 presidential election, which had produced President Yar’Adua of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner.
They are insisting the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2006.
The tribunal had last week reserved judgment in the consolidated petitions.
In his final address, Buhari said the voters’ register used for the election was so irregular “that even photos of children featured in many documents”.
He claimed that he had established beyond reasonable doubts that results in form EC8D(A)s and EC8E were arbitrarily assigned without any election at the base.
Buhari said he had shown through different documents that results were written on different days before the election and after the results had been announced.
“It is submitted that where the so-called final results contain figures that were said to have arisen before the date of election and even after the so-called final result had been announced, then it would take minimal objectivity to come to a conclusion that the final result was arbitrarily put together,” he said.
Before closing his case, the AC candidate had applied to tender the official report of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
But the court upheld the objection of President Yar’Adua, saying the application was out of time and that if the petitioner knew it was vital to his case he would have tendered it earlier.
Atiku’s counsel, Prof. Babatunde Kasumu SAN, had complained that his answers, to the interrogatories served on him contradicted his account in the said report and accused him of perjury.
He said it was wrong for Iwu to insinuate that the contract for the printing of ballot papers was awarded to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc which contradicted what he said in the official report of the election he presented in October last year that the ballot papers were printed by a South African company.
Atiku also insisted he was wrongfully excluded from the April 21, 2007 election.
The President’s counsel, Olanipekun, had objected to the application on several grounds, including that the INEC report was neither pleaded nor was any witness statement attached to the petition.
President Yar’Adua also told the court that Buhari had not proved any case against him because the criminal allegations made were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the same vein, INEC, represented by Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), held that Buhari’s petition was like a tripod now resting on a single but very weak leg because both the party and Buhari’s running mate, Chief Edwin Ume-Ezeoke, had since withdrawn from the suit.
He argued that the petition indicated that Ume-Ezeoke enjoyed joint ticket and without him in the suit, nothing can be made out of all issues raised in the petition, stressing that the petition ought not to have been filed in the first place and consequently must suffer a dismissal.
The arguments of both Agabi and President Yar’Adua’s counsel, Olanipekun, with respect to Buhari’s petition were similar in that they submitted that the depositions made against the election were only from five out of 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT Abuja.
Agabi argued that all the irregularities, alleged by the petitioner and which must affect the outcome of the election, were not attributed to INEC and that the court should not act on account of the allegation.
According to him, “The law insists on substantial compliance with the law and not total or absolute compliance. Election is not perfect anywhere. Our submission is that INEC properly documented the election. Therefore the allegation that there were malpractices in five states cannot stand because if the ballots are valid for 25 states, then they are valid for 36 states. It is a presidential election we are talking about and this petition must be dismissed.”
Olanipekun told the court that all allegations bordered on crimes and that the onus was on Buhari to prove beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding that it was an election matter, adding that it was just too late for the petitioner to abandon the criminal aspect at this stage of trial.
Responding, Ahamba (SAN), Buhari’s lawyer, clarified that the petition did not abandon any state and that the insinuation that evidence was led only in respect of five states was a ploy to distract the tribunal from the main issue of whether the results of the election were actually assigned or whether they arose from the election conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act.
He said INEC refused to further explanation on various discrepancies and urged the court to take cognizance of the European Union’s report on the election, saying if the law of the country allows monitors to observe its election, then reports emanating from such observation should be deemed relevant in the determination of the petition.
Ahamba submitted that there were results before and after the election and one contradicted the other and that coming from the same source, INEC, had only shown that it did not conduct a credible and acceptable election.
He said he never asked the court to set aside the practice direction and urged the court to allow the petition “because the election was badly conducted.”
With respect to Atiku’s arm of the consolidated petition, Olanipekun said the issue of exclusion is a life issue which the court must resolve within the narrow perspective of section 145 (1) (d) of the Electoral Act.
He said the petitioner had not demonstrated how ballot papers were stuffed nor tendered the smashed ballot boxes in his evidence.
Olanipekun submitted that Atiku was not excluded because the name of his party, AC, and the symbol were on the specimen of the ballot and appeared as No 1 on the list.
He argued that election was conducted and AC won in Lagos beating PDP mercilessly, saying having contested the election and results declared for the party in Oyo and other states, the petitioner could not ask the court to decide on the basis of media and European report.
The laws of the country, he said, specified how election should be conducted and such laws did not include foreign reports.