A renewed controversy has erupted over Nigeria’s electricity sector financing after Phrank Shaibu, media aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar alleged that the Federal Government has repeatedly rolled out massive interventions for the same power sector debts without clear public accounting of prior disbursements.

Speaking on Trust TV, Shaibu recounted what he described as a post–Democracy Day conversation involving Atiku Abubakar, in which the former vice president reportedly questioned the substance of President Bola Tinubu’s national address and the credibility of repeated power sector bailouts.

The allegations centre on a chain of interventions between late 2025 and mid-2026 that now collectively run into trillions of naira, raising fresh concerns about transparency, duplication, and fiscal accountability in Nigeria’s electricity market.

Shaibu said the sequence began on December 20, 2025, when the Federal Government announced a ₦509 billion bond to offset verified debts owed to electricity generation companies (GenCos).

By January 2026, he noted, officials claimed that about ₦501 billion had been fully subscribed, a development that was widely interpreted as a step toward clearing outstanding obligations in the sector.

But, according to him, the trail becomes unclear thereafter. Instead of closure, a new and significantly larger intervention emerged. In April 2026, Shaibu alleged that the government approved an ₦3.3 trillion intervention package to settle what was still described as power sector debts.

The scale of the figure — far exceeding the earlier bond — has now become a central point of political contention, with critics questioning whether the earlier financing exercise achieved its intended purpose or was absorbed without full settlement of liabilities.
The controversy escalated further on June 12, 2026, when a new proposal reportedly emerged for an additional ₦4 trillion facility targeted at the same category of GenCo obligations.

For Shaibu and Atiku’s circle, the repeated appearance of “new funds for old debts” is the core issue.

He argued that the pattern suggests a lack of closure, asking why successive funding rounds are being introduced while earlier interventions remain publicly unaccounted for.
Shaibu raised a series of pointed questions that now sit at the heart of the controversy, demanding clarity on the fate of the funds deployed in successive interventions.

He asked who exactly received the ₦509 billion bond proceeds, and whether the ₦501 billion subscription was in fact fully disbursed to the electricity generation companies (GenCos).
He further questioned what portion of the ₦3.3 trillion intervention has actually been paid out in concrete terms, and why the same debt profile continues to persist despite multiple rounds of government financing.

At the centre of his concern is also the absence of a transparent reconciliation ledger detailing beneficiaries and payments, which he argues is critical to determining whether the funds achieved their stated purpose or remain trapped in accounting ambiguity.
He further cited claims attributed to stakeholders in the generation sector suggesting that some GenCos continue to report unpaid arrears despite the government’s repeated intervention announcements.

The allegations have sharpened scrutiny over Nigeria’s power sector financing model, which has long relied on government-backed interventions to prevent liquidity collapse across the electricity value chain.
However, Shaibu framed the current situation differently — not as isolated interventions, but as what he described as a recurring cycle of funding without visible settlement closure.

He argued that the pattern amounts to “recycling liabilities” rather than extinguishing them, warning that the absence of transparency could undermine public confidence in economic reforms.
In a controversial analogy, he likened the process to repeated payments for an asset that is never delivered — a framing that is likely to intensify political backlash and deepen partisan tensions.

At the time of filing this report, there was no official response from the Presidency or the Ministry of Power addressing the specific allegations or the sequence of figures cited.
The development comes amid growing public concern over Nigeria’s rising debt exposure, infrastructure financing pressures, and the sustainability of repeated interventionist funding in critical sectors such as electricity.

Beyond the political exchange, the controversy has reopened a broader national question: whether Nigeria’s power sector is receiving genuine debt resolution — or simply undergoing repeated rounds of refinancing without closure.
For now, that question remains unanswered, even as the figures involved continue to climb into the trillions.