The Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company is under fire for raising its minimum energy credit purchase requirement for Band A customers to N5,000.

The Disco also capped the minimum energy credit for customers on other bands at N2,000, sparking outrage and condemnation from various consumer groups.

In a message to its customers, the IBEDC said, “Please be informed of a recent update regarding IBEDC electricity recharge. Users on Band A must now make a minimum recharge purchase of N5,000. Users in other bands must make a minimum purchase of N2,000.

“Kindly note that this new payment structure is effective already and applies exclusively to IBEDC customers.”

The PUNCH reports that before now, customers were allowed to purchase energy credit of any amount and this still operates in other Discos except the IBEDC.

The spokesperson of the Ibadan Disco, Busolami Tunwase, said this new policy was to curb energy theft, but she did not give further details about how this will be achieved.

“It’s part of efforts at curbing energy theft,” she tersely replied when our correspondent contacted her.

Defending the initiative, a top official of the company who did not want to be mentioned, said currently, while reviewing the vending platform, it was discovered that some customers were vending low amounts which they use for a whole month, wondering if this could be possible.

“If a Band A customer vends 50 units, the amount to pay is N10,450 exclusive of VAT. So, this means the customer is using less than two units a day for one month? We think this is practically impossible,” the official stated.

He noted that some customers were engaging in meter bypass, thereby paying little to enjoy a stable power supply.

Speaking on the matter, the National Coordinator of All Electricity Consumers Forum, Adeola Samuel-Ilori, noted that the policy has to be reversed to avoid backslashes.

Samuel-Ilori said it is against consumers’ right to choice and this may trigger litigations.

“It’s unacceptable to take away the right of people to choose what their purchasing power can afford. Electricity is not a privilege but a right under the constitution and power sector law of operation. A reversal will be required in my official letter to the IBEDC this week. And after the ultimatum, we may engage litigations to compel reversal,” he told The PUNCH.

Also, the Convener of PowerUp Nigeria, Adetayo Adegbemle, remarked, “I don’t think there’s anything in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s regulation that supports such limitations from IBEDC. I understand IBEDC is trying to raise its collections, but it needs to be careful not to incur further penalties from the regulators.”

Adegbemle maintained that the policy will not curb energy theft, but it will rather encourage it if people are not able to vend according to their pockets.

The President of the Nigeria Consumer Protection Network, Kola Olubiyo, told our correspondent that the Federal Competition And Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission are already investigating the allegations.

He said, “The very essence of promoting a competitive electricity market and the right to choice and freedom of the end-user customers in these particular circumstances are being undermined.

“It is an absurdity and an unthinkable monopolistic conscription of the demand side of the market.”

Similarly, the Executive Director of the Electricity Consumer Protection Advocacy Centre, Princewill Okorie, lamented that the power sector is increasingly becoming oppressive and anti-consumer friendly, reeling out policies that are not in line with realities.

Okorie wondered why a customer would be compelled to buy the quantity of product he is not ready for.

Okorie stressed, “The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission should be approached to do its job of protecting consumers in line with the provisions of their Act.

“Why will a consumer be forced to buy the quantity of product he is not ready for? This administration needs to explain if they are here to protect the welfare and security of the people or to oppress them. Civil liberty and civil rights need to be protected.”

Credit: PUNCH

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board has introduced a mock Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination for candidates below the age of 16.

JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, explained that the mock UTME is not for the purpose of tertiary institution admission but for underage seeking to test their ability.

Oloyede spoke on Sunday at a meeting with media executives in Lagos, where he also announced that this year’s UTME will hold on March 8, 2025.

“We are starting the sale of forms on the 31st of January till 5th of March. There will be a mock exam on the 23rd of February and on the 8th of March there will be UTME,” the JAMB Registrar said.

Oloyede mentioned that JAMB would be introducing a mock for trial-testing examination only this year.

He explained that the mock-trial-testing examination is for individuals who would not qualify for admission into universities, polytechnics or colleges of education because they are below the age of 16 years.

He added that to qualify to write UTME and secure admission into universities, polytechnics or colleges of education, candidates must be 16 years old on or before September 30.

According to the don, candidates who do not desire admission for 2025 but wish to have CBT experience could register for mock only for trial testing.

He noted that the sale of Direct Entry application documents and e-PIN vending would commence on March 10 and April 7.

Oloyede explained that those wishing to write UTME with mock would pay N8,200, UTME only (without mock) N7,200, trial-testing mock only (for underage or testing only) and direct entry candidate N5,700.

The JAMB registrar explained that the board would be enforcing the 16-year age limit for this year’s UTME registration, noting that only gifted candidates below 15 years old be allowed to register.

He added that to qualify to secure admission as an underage, the candidate must score not less than 280 marks in UTME and perform exceptionally in its senior secondary certificate and post-UTME examinations.

“The policy meeting on admission adopted 16 years as the minimum for 2024 admission. JAMB tried to assist by extending the date to accommodate more candidates, but we were taken to court to reverse the extension to 16 years,” he explained.

Former Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman, announced last year that only candidates aged 18 and above would be admitted into tertiary institutions in the country.

The declaration attracted a lot of criticisms from Nigerians, which forced the Federal Government to reverse the decision.

Mamman’s successor, Dr Tunji Alausa, suspended the 18-year admission benchmark for tertiary institutions in the country in November 2024.

Meanwhile, Oloyede disclosed that 870 computer-based test centres had been screened and provisionally listed for the 2025 UTME compared to 747 approved last year.

The Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday fixed February 27, 2025, for the arraignment of Gbolahan Obanikoro, the son of Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, and four others for alleged N1,356,057,330.43 fraud.

To be arraigned alongside Obanikoro are Adejare Adegbenro, 51; Balmoral International Limited; M.O.B. Integrated Limited; and DDSS International Company Limited.

The police charged them with five counts, bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretenses, false representation, and fraud.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa set the date on Friday after the defendants failed to appear for their scheduled arraignment.

When the case was called, the prosecution counsel, Momoh Bello, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the arraignment of the defendants.

Following the absence of the defendants, Bello then asked the court for a bench warrant against them, saying that they had all been served.

But counsel for the fourth defendant ( M.O.B. Integrated Limited), Joshua Abel, opposed the bench warrant prayer.

He told the court that the fourth defendant is a company and that the fourth defendant received service late on Wednesday and he was informed of the case late on Thursday.

Abel also told the court that most of the defendants, who are directors of the firm, were not in the country.

“I have not had the opportunity to go through the case before the directors can be arraigned,” he said.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa then asked the prosecutor for the proof of service and date of service.

He said, “I want proof of service and the date of service. The record of this court shows that service was effected on the third and fourth defendants. It’s less than 48 hours that they have been served; one of them was served yesterday. The first and second defendants are natural persons and there is no proof of service on them.

“The law says personal service. You can go and regularise service on the defendants. There is no proof that the first and second defendants have been served. However, there is proof that the third and fourth defendants have been served. The prosecution is directed to serve the first and second defendants,” the judge ruled and then adjourned till February 27, 2025, for the arraignment of all the defendants.

The Inspector General of Police, through the Special Fraud Unit in Ikoyi, Lagos, accused the defendants and others at large of conspiring amongst themselves between May and September 2013 to fraudulently obtain the sum of N1,356,057,330.43 from Access Bank Plc (formerly Diamond Bank).

They were accused of allegedly misrepresenting themselves to the bank’s staff and officers, claiming they were involved in the business of importing cars from Dubai for sale in Nigeria, and that the money was needed to finance the importation of a set of brand-new cars for resale.

The defendants are also being accused of converting, transferring, retaining, or taking possession of the funds, knowing or having reason to know that such funds were proceeds of unlawful activity.

The police further alleged that they unlawfully converted the sum of N1bn belonging to the bank for personal use.

According to the police, the offences committed contravened Section 8(i)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3), 1(i)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offenses Act, No. 14 of 2006, and Section 18(2)(b) and (d) and 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.