Connect with us

Feature/OPED

BRICS and the Global South Cooperation

Published

on

BRICS Global South Cooperation

By Professors Abdullahi Y. Shehu and Maurice Okoli

Introduction

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 ‘the tectonic plates of geopolitics have been shifting’ and with current geopolitical tensions, including the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Israeli-Hamas war, new alliances and potential rivalry among world powers seeking for influence in Africa and other regions of the world, ‘we may see the world becoming more multipolar’. Despite the plethora of multilateral institutions, multipolarity has become a cliché as member states forge new alliances to address perceived injustices in the existing system.

BRICS emerged from the Russia-India-China strategic triangle called RIC. The group that was promoted by Russia ostensibly to challenge the perceived monopoly or hegemony of the United States of America (USA), thus renewing old ties with India and fostering the newly discovered friendship with China. BRICS is the acronym denoting the emerging national economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The term was originally coined in 2001 as BRIC by the Goldman Sachs economist Jim O Neil in his report, Building Better Global Economic BRICs. (Global Economic paper No:66) then South Africa joined in 2010, leading to the transformation from BRIC to BRICS.

This paper examines the emergence and evolution of BRICS in the context of the current geopolitical situation and economic alliances for sustainable development. It reviews the objectives of BRICS and discusses the relevance and attraction of the bloc in the 21st century, especially within the framework of Global South cooperation. The prospects, opportunities and challenges for meaningful and constructive partnership within the framework of BRICS are also examined.

Our conclusion is that “the organization has struggled to have the kind of geopolitical influence that matches its collective economic reach. It also embodies a synergy of cultures and explores a model of genuine multilateral diplomacy. Its structure is formed in compliance with the 21st century realities. Efforts within its framework are based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and justice”. Furthermore, “while the BRICS bloc can have significant influence, it will not be sufficient to make a revolution in the existing international relations”.

The relevance of BRICS in the 21st century multilateralism

BRICS member countries share the desire for the world to accord them a larger role through their common platform for global reform. Although the framework of BRICS is more or less informal, that is, without a Secretariat as in the case of most multilateral organizations, the organization seems be assuming greater significance due to its philosophy and principles of equality. The major roles of BRICS are derived largely from statements issued at Summits.

Over the years, BRICS has focused on highlighting the need for emerging powers to have a greater voice in global governance. In the wake of the global financial crisis, the joint statement by BRICS leaders in 2009 contained strong declarations on the importance of coordinating financial policy through the G20 and the need to reform international financial institutions to create “greater voice and representation” for emerging economies, including a more transparent process for leadership selection.

In the joint statement at the end of the third Summit in 2011, China and Russia reiterated the importance they attached to the status of India, Brazil, and South Africa in international affairs, and underscored the importance of their aspiration to play a greater role in the UN. By the fourth Summit held in New Delhi in 2012, BRICS stressed that its member countries represent 43 percent of the world’s population, signaling clearly their concern for more representation in global institutions. This position has been echoed in many subsequent communications.

While in 2010, the group was at the infant stage of its formation and could be easily dismissed as yet another inconsequential global institution, today, it is harder to say that the BRICS does not matter. The five countries have rapidly used the BRICS platform to signal to the world that the old twentieth-century institutions have to change. This signal transformed into action from 2012 as its diplomatic calendar continues to expand yearly, with a host of interactions to both coordinate policy positions, as well as expand official and people-to-people dialogue, generally on non-contentious global issues – climate change, transnational organized crime, etc.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that what began with Summit-level gatherings and, separate meetings of Foreign Ministers, now include meetings Sectoral Ministers, Central Bank Governors, National Security Advisors, a Business Council, a Think Tanks Council, a Parliamentary Forum, a Cultural Festival, as well as a Friendship Cities and Local Governments Cooperation Forum.

Among all the structural frameworks of BRICS, the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB), along with a Contingent Reserves Arrangement (CRA) has been adjudged the most significant after long-pending reforms of IMF and the World Bank failed to materialize. The NDB has since become fully operational, and recently, Egypt has joined the bank as a new member, while other countries, including Turkey are warming to do the same.

In accordance with the Charter, each member having equal voice have also contributed equal share of the $50 billion initial subscription capital. Similarly, while the governance structure emphasizes equal and rotational representation, the NDB operates from its Headquarters in Shanghai under the leadership of K.V. Kamath, a former CEO of India’s ICICI Bank as its first President. In April 2017, just under five years after the idea of the NDB came out of the Delhi Summit, the bank signed its first development loan agreement with Brazil.

The BRICS countries indeed have deepened their partnership over the past years, developing a real organization out of a mere idea, to prove its capacity to create new financial institutions with equal opportunities. Resulting from the removal of Russia from the global SWIFT payment system, the BRICS are working towards a new financial infrastructure, an alternative payment and internet networks to assert the multipolarity of the world economy.

From all indications, the emergence of BRICS and the level of commitment it demonstrates in the pursuit of its goals of economic development among its members, has indeed, shown that BRICS has come to stay. Being founded on the principles of equality of member states, right of access to development funds, developing countries and emerging economies consider the relevance of BRICS as a global institution. Many countries will soon come to terms with BRICS due to the significant influence it commands on global socio-economic affairs in the build up to the emerging world order. One major characteristic identical to BRICS member countries revolves around their population, natural resource endowment and economic potentials.

Indeed, the outcome of the XV BRICS Summit, held in South Africa from 22 to 24 August 2023, with the theme: “BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Multilateralism”, may have added impetus to the traction of the bloc based on its motivating ‘commitment to inclusive multilateralism, support for comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council; support for open, transparent, fair, predictable, inclusive, equitable and non-discriminatory rules-based multilateral trading system’

BRICS XVI Summit in Kazan, Russia

Russia currently assumes the leadership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa plus five (5) new members (Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia) that ascended unto the association in January 2024.

Until the forthcoming XVI summit next October, Russia has already lined up a comprehensive pack of activities aimed at building an appreciable image and direction, and creating a better future based on its historical developments and contemporary geopolitical realities for the association.

In an exclusive address to ….Russian President, Vladimir Putin outlined the main priorities for the Summit, with the theme: Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security. During the year, Russia plans to hold over 200 events in three key areas of BRICS cooperation: politics and security, economy and finance, as well as cultural and humanitarian contacts. The BRICS summit scheduled to take place in Kazan, the Russian Federation in October 2024, will be the culmination of Russia’s chairmanship.

One of the crucial tasks is to ensure the integration of new participants in the BRICS mechanisms without compromising their efficiency. To implement Johannesburg II Declaration, Russia will devise the modality of establishing the category of BRICS partner states and create a list of potential candidates to present the report at the Kazan summit.  In addition, Russia will contribute to the comprehensive implementation of the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership until 2025 and the Action Plan for BRICS Innovation Cooperation for 2021-2024.

As the first step, Russia plans to ensure that the decision adopted during the XV summit, held on August 22-24, 2023, in South Africa to expand BRICS membership becomes a reality, as a particularly important step to strengthen the position of BRICS which epitomizes the diversity of the multipolar world. Both Kremlin and the Foreign Affairs Ministry have indicated that more than 30 countries, have expressed interest in establishing close ties with BRICS.

The second step will see Russia hosting a number of major international cultural events, including the World Youth Festival, the Games of the Future which is a mix of physical sports and cybersports, and the sports games of the BRICS countries. Both games will be held in Kazan, capital of the Republic of Tatarstan (the Games of the Future in February, and the BRICS Games in the summer of 2024).

Already,  during a cabinet meeting on 26 January 2024, Putin had directed relevant government ministries and departments to draft proposals on expansion of cooperation with BRICS colleagues in the ‘climate area,  joint developments in the area of monitoring climatically-active gases and measuring the carbon balance of ecosystems, including the development of systems for collection and processing of data for estimation of human-caused and natural flows of greenhouse gases and other climatically-active elements’.

The cabinet is also to develop mutual recognition of tools and technologies in this field by BRICS nations. Another area of work is laying the groundwork for development of joint technical scientific solutions aimed at easing the human impact on the environment, climate and adjustment of economies and the population of member states to climate changes. The order should be executed by June 3.

Certainly, in order for the forum to expand its geography even further, with the need to use the most advanced technologies for possible remote participation from anywhere in the world. And approach for consolidating BRICS scope of activities and as an explicit indication of collective team work under Russia’s presidency, Federation Council (the upper house of the Russian Parliament) Speaker Valentina Matviyenko has added her voice to BRICS 2024.

For the first time within the Fourth Eurasian Women’s Forum from September 18 to 20 in St. Petersburg, Matviyenko proposed a special session on women – the BRICS Women’s Forum. She stated inter alia that “As part of the fourth forum, we plan to hold the BRICS Women’s Forum for the first time. This BRICS Women’s Forum will present both the results of existing projects and new initiatives, which will strengthen partnerships between the BRICS member countries, including on the women’s agenda,”

Prospects and Opportunities for BRICS Expansion

In the latest BRICS summit, some of the observations and objectives were spelled out in the declaration: “With the addition of six new members, BRICS now has 30 percent of the world economy within its collaboration, with a combined GDP of US$30.76 trillion. It also constitutes 40 percent of the world’s population. The necessity of expanding trade and investment among the BRICS member states and strengthening their relations was emphasized by the summit leaders. By 2050, leaders at the summit hope to account for 50 percent of the world’s GDP, which will fundamentally change the economic landscape.”

‘It is estimated that by 2040, the BRICS group will account for more than 50% of the global GDP, because enlargement within the BRICS plus framework through integration of a number of large countries will facilitate the achievement of about 50% of global production of goods and services’.And, ‘in March 2022 experts from the IMF had warned that the heavy financial sanctions imposed on could threaten to gradually weaken the dominance of the US dollar, lead to a more multilateral international systems and encourage the emergence of small currency blocks based on trade among a certain group of countries. Already, it is noted that the BRICS countries have established a contingency reserve arrangement (CRA), a mechanism aimed at ensuring liquidity for member-states when they are confronted by short term balance of payment crises’.

In this regard, BRICS offers a model that motivates countries to join. Scholars have argued that the use of a single currency that is being contemplated or local currencies in trade exchange among members could be an effective counter balance to the monopoly or dominance of the US dollar. It is assumed that the dollar system, with its great deal of volatility, systematically undervalues the currencies of Third World countries’.

In addition, ‘elevated interest rates and stronger dollar make it more expensive for for African countries to service dollar denominated debt, something that has pushed many countries into debt distress’. The fact that Egypt, Ethiopia and other countries of the Global South are joining BRICS could mean that they are gradually moving away from the dollar-based system of global trade, experts told the Jeune Afrique news magazine.  For Africa the use of the dollar in trade means that countries have no chance to trade with each other in local currencies, Elizabeth Rossiello, Chief Executive Officer of the Kenyan financial company AZA Finance, said. African nations are looking for new ways to raise money as global financial entities, such as the World Bank, fail to give sufficient attention to the continent, she stressed.

Characterized as a supra-global structure, BRICS “encapsulates the richness of multipolar world” and particularly embraces the developing Global South. BRICS is also attractive to developing countries because it can act as a buffer from US sanctions, Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, said. The countries of the global South see the association as a counterweight to the US-dominated global financial system, the analyst added.

That said, a number of experts note that the expansion of BRICS will not lead to the fragmentation of the global economy. Adam Slater, lead economist for the Oxford Economics company, believes that the integration’s total share in global trade stands at a mere 3%. Meanwhile, former employee at the White House and the World Bank Harry Broadman thinks that joining BRICS has more of a political and symbolic meaning, not economic.

Nevertheless, Yaroslav Lissovolik, a former Chief Economist and Head of Research in Deutsche Bank Russia and former Advisor to Russia’s Executive Director in the International Monetary Fund and now the founder of BRICS+ Analytics – a think-tank that explores the potential of the BRICS+ format in the global economy, also argues that there is the strong expectation that BRICS will consolidate its role within the emerging geopolitical processes and global competition for Africa. China and Russia are currently making efforts to assert influence more aggressively, despite the challenges and obstacles, in cooperating with Africa.

According to Lissovolik, there are not too many economic mechanisms created thus far by the BRICS — the main economic contribution of the BRICS has been the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). The BRICS NDB is set to expand its membership to include more developing economies.

There are also plans within BRICS to widen the mandate of the BRICS CRA to make it more effective in supporting member countries. What is lacking at this stage is a financial mechanism that would facilitate the payments in national currencies among the BRICS economies — discussions on the creation of such a mechanism (widely referred to as BRICS Pay) have been ongoing since 2017, but progress in this area has been moderate at best. Furthermore, the issue of the creation of a common currency or an accounting unit for all BRICS countries has also progressed slowly. (See BRICS+ Analytics website, October 2023)

Within BRICS, China and Russia will likely cooperate towards creating those financial and economic mechanisms that are lacking in the global economy. The purpose of BRICS is not to undermine any economy, as the leaders have made it clear that ‘they are not friends against someone but work in each other’s interests, to create alternative cooperative platforms for economic cooperation among countries.

In the longer term, the African Union (AU) could also participate in the reconstruction and the reform of the main global institutions and fora such as the WTO, the G20 and the UN Security Council. In 2023, the AU became a member of the G20, and since January 2021 has been successful in advancing the project of Africa’s regional integration via the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Again, the best way in which the BRICS could contribute towards the success of this regional integration project is via greater trade openness to African economies. The success of the AfCFTA would go a long way towards overcoming the limitations faced by Africa’s economy in terms of low intra-continental regional connectivity and trade.

Considered as the largest single continental market, the AfCFTA spanning 54 states over the next years has the huge potential to unite more than 1.4 billion people in a $2.5 trillion economic bloc. It is expected to boost intra-African trade by 52.3 per cent by 2025, increase Africa’s income by up to $450 billion by 2035, according to the assessment report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF supports expansion of BRICS to make use of the advantage of global integration, IMF Spokesperson Julie Kozack noted at a regular briefing for reporters. “We do welcome countries working together, finding ways to trade, to become integrated, so that more people can benefit from the gains of global integration.,” Kozack said. (See IMF briefings – Jan. 11, 2024)

Therefore, to a great extent, individual BRICS members and/or collectively would have direct focus on more integration and more global cooperation. It has the potential to generate a range of benefits through supporting trade creation, structural transformation, productive employment and poverty reduction. Further to that, the AfCFTA, without much doubts, opens up more various opportunities for both local African and foreign investors from around the world.

In the context of this article discussion, it is important to state that BRICS African members (Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa) could be used as the gateway into the vast markets. BRICS has to necessarily leverage unto this and to deepen Africa’s trade integration and effectively implement the agreement through policy advocacy and strategy development. It could possibly utilize trade integration processes in close collaboration with the Regional Economic Communities and specialized African trade chambers across Africa.

Despite profound challenges, the AU member states are continuing to stride towards continental unity. Understanding this necessity, the 15th Summit in South Africa noted in its proceedings, “The BRICS summit members agreed to extend their support for an African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA). The summit stressed the value of the political stability of the African continent in building market certainty.

Leaders at the summit also explored potential ways and methods to strengthen communication and cooperation to expand AfCFTA. If successful, and if implementation moves ahead, such a move by the BRICS countries will help foster new dynamics of engagement, and on several other contemporary issues such as drug trafficking and terrorism…. The summit also discussed increasing population in BRICS countries and their increasing food security concerns. In order to improve food security, lower costs, and to achieve a carbon neutral economy, BRICS leaders favored the role of modern technology in advancing agriculture. They also hoped to make Africa a global food basket.”

Dr. Srinivas Junuguru, an Associate Professor, and Abhinaya Rayee, Woxsen School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, Telangana co-authored an article in which they stated that the enlarged association now constitutes 46% of the world’s population and 29.6% of the world’s GDP. And that BRICS aims to defend the interests of developing nations amid attempts by developed nations to impose their standards.

With the potential for a new reserve currency, discussions within BRICS on settling international trade in local currencies are ongoing, challenging the dollar’s monopoly. The growth of BRICS is fostering a multi-polar world, creating opportunities for closer ties and collaboration between developing nations. However, concerns persist about the association’s cohesion, given the diverse allegiances of its members, particularly amid tense relations between India and China.

Challenges

The potentials and success story of BRICS notwithstanding, there are significant challenges towards actualizing its goals in a globalized economy. First, is the fact that the prosperity of the world is dependent on energy and market, and whereas BRICS has this comparative advantage to some extent because of Russia’s energy and India’s and Chinese markets, the growing rivalry between the United States and China, the two largest world economies poses significant challenge for the growth and prosperity of BRICS.

Secondly, the dominance of the US dollar in the global financial system constitutes a significant challenge to the BRICS group, especially when it comes to introducing its own currency in financial institutions worldwide. Besides, the US dollar is also the dominant currency in the global stock markets, as well as markets of goods, bank deposits, funding of development projects and loans.

Thirdly, apart from Russia, all the other BRICS members have a strong connection with the West including China, through trade. It would therefore be difficult for countries to severe their financial ties with the US and West in general. China is the biggest exporter in the group and has enormous surplus, however, its currency, the Yuan, cannot favourably compete with the US dollar because it is not on the global markets. Despite China’s significant power in global trade, the Yuan accounts for less 2.5% of global transactions, less than the dollar share of about 40% and the Euro, which is at the level of 36%’.

With respect to the group’s goal of creating a single/common currency, they may connect with the country which has a low inflation rate, which is China. The challenge, however, is that they would need also a common monetary policy and perhaps a common regulator, which may not be in tandem with Brazil and India’s overall policies. China and India have been historical rivals, as India is antagonistic to China’s expansion in the South-East Asia and Pacific and; while India is close to the US or the West, so to say, China is a real or potential rival of the US in the global economy. At some point, it was thought that India was opposed to the expansion of the BRICS group contrary to the positions of Russia and China, the two big partners.

Conclusion 

The BRICS, which academic experts referred to as a grouping of developing nations, initially focused on economic cooperation, has evolved into a significant player in global politics. The organization’s disposition as a competitor to the Western influence in the global economy and its pursuit of reforms align with the national interests of its members have gained traction and offered greater attraction and motivation for countries to join.

With substantial contributions to global GDP, strategic placement, and influence in international trade and security, BRICS plays a crucial role. However, challenges include the lack of a formal charter for admitting new members and existing conflicts, such as those between China and India, which may hinder the association’s development. A collaborative approach between major members is crucial for BRICS to overcome internal conflicts and achieve its objectives.

There are prospects, opportunities and challenges for such partnership within the framework of BRICS. However, “the organization has struggled to have the kind of geopolitical influence that matches its collective economic reach. It also embodies a synergy of cultures and explores a model of genuine multilateral diplomacy. Its structure is formed in compliance with the 21st century realities. Efforts within its framework are based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and justice”. Furthermore, “while the BRICS block can have significant influence, it will not be sufficient to make a revolution in the existing international relations”. Russian Federation has taken over the BRICS presidency for 2024 from South Africa and that will be a game changing incident in contemporary international relations.

AbdullahiY. Shehu is Professor of Criminology; former Director General of the ECOWAS Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa, and former Ambassador of Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Russian Federation. 

Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club.

As an academic researcher and economist with keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particulary in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: ma***********@***il.com

Professors Abdullahi Y. Shehu and Maurice Okoli are frequent contributors on BRICS.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

3 Infrastructure Gaps Nigerian Lenders Can’t Afford to Ignore

Published

on

Winston Osuchukwu

By Winston Osuchukwu

Digital transformation has modernised the front end of the credit process in Nigeria, streamlining customer journeys and shortening the path from application to disbursement. However, this progress has not reached the core of the credit process. While digital application flows are now standard, the underlying risk infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Following the withdrawal of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s forbearance measures, the sector’s non-performing loan (NPL) ratio climbed to 8.03% – well above the 5% regulatory limit.

The deeper, structural flaw is that banks still run on legacy risk models and backwards-looking data: an approach that leaves existing portfolios exposed while shutting out the vast retail market. To scale retail and SME credit safely, forward-looking institutions must close three critical gaps in their core credit infrastructure.

1. The Bureau and Data Blind Spot

Many institutions rely on a fragmented view of borrower risk. Internal transaction data offers a deep but narrow view of a borrower’s behaviour within one institution, while periodic credit bureau reports provide a broad but shallow, “negative-only” history across other lenders. Because credit bureau coverage in Nigeria remains relatively low and data sharing is often inconsistent, neither source effectively captures how a borrower actually earns, spends, and repays. Resolving this requires unifying the data architecture, integrating internal behavioural signals with diverse external streams such as payroll, utility, and alternative financial data, to build a continuous, real-time picture of cash flow and true repayment capacity.

2. Static Risk Acceptance Criteria

To assess a borrower’s credit eligibility, banks apply internal risk acceptance criteria that are often static. In a volatile macroeconomic environment marked by shifting interest rates and inflation, a borrower’s financial reality changes rapidly, rendering these rigid, point-in-time benchmarks obsolete. Furthermore, out of caution, these inflexible thresholds often default to conservative rejections for unfamiliar applicants, such as new salaried employees or thin-file borrowers – those with little or no formal credit history for a bureau or bank to draw on – leaving profitable loans on the table. Transitioning to a predictive model changes risk management into a continuous, data-driven cycle. By ingesting high-frequency behavioural data, risk systems can dynamically govern their acceptance criteria in real-time, allowing them to adjust parameters, optimise pricing, and deploy interventions well before a default occurs.

3. The Collections Disconnect

In many institutions, collections teams operate in silos downstream of the credit department, meaning critical recovery performance data rarely gets fed back to front-end risk models. Consequently, underwriting systems fail to learn from actual repayment behaviours – repeating the same structural pricing mistakes. Integrating these functions via a direct data pipeline creates a self-learning loop, routing recovery outcomes back into the origination engine. This empowers the risk engine to dynamically update models, continuously refining underwriting criteria based on real-world results to prevent future defaults and capture lost basis points.

The Bottom Line

Closing these gaps requires intentionality: moving away from ‘set-and-forget’ tools to systems that actively manage risk. It means moving beyond fragmented data toward an integrated intelligence layer that learns from borrower behaviour to govern automated decisions with precision. The lenders that lead over the next year will be those that treat credit not as an isolated transaction, but as a continuous, dynamic process. At Mathesis, we have spent years building the engine that makes this possible, powering over eight million loans for two million Nigerians. The future of credit belongs to those who adopt this predictive approach – and we have the proven tools and expertise to help you get there.

Winston Osuchukwu is the Founder and Chief Executive of Mathesis, a Nigerian credit intelligence company

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Power Reform Faces Delivery Test as Band A Credits, Net Billing Take Effect

Published

on

prepaid electricity meter

EBC Financial Group (EBC) notes that Nigeria’s electricity reform is entering a phase where higher tariffs, customer credits and new rules on renewable self-generation will be judged by whether businesses actually receive reliable power and can reduce diesel backup costs. Under the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) Service-Based Tariff (SBT) system, a tariff model that links electricity prices to expected supply levels, Band A customers pay premium electricity tariffs in exchange for an expected minimum supply of 20 hours per day. NERC’s latest compensation order sends a clear signal: if customers are paying a premium rate, they should receive the supply level they are paying for, and if they do not, they should be credited.

Why Power Reliability is Now a Business-Cost Story

Nigeria’s power supply gap remains a direct cost for businesses. NERC’s April 2026 Operational Performance Factsheet showed that grid-connected power plants had a Plant Availability Factor (PAF) of 31 per cent, with an average of 4,286 megawatts (MW) available for dispatch out of 13,625MW of installed capacity. When available grid power falls short of business needs, companies often have to keep backup generators running, adding fuel, maintenance and planning costs to production.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Business Expectations Survey for March 2026 identified insufficient power supply with an index reading of 74.5 as a leading business constraint, ahead of insecurity, high or multiple taxes, high interest rates and financial problems. The index ranks the severity of reported business constraints, with higher readings indicating a more pressing concern for firms.

Band A Compensation Tests Tariff Credibility

NERC’s compensation directive does more than reimburse customers for missed supply hours. It sets a precedent that premium tariff bands carry enforceable service obligations. NERC issued Directive No. NERC/2026/002 on the Special Compensation of Band A Customers Arising from Grid Generation Constraints, covering eligible Band A customers affected by power shortfalls between February and March 2026.

Under the framework, smaller electricity users, classified as Non-Maximum Demand (Non-MD) customers, are to receive a credit equal to 20 per cent of the approved February 2026 energy cap for the affected feeder, meaning the electricity line serving those customers. Larger commercial and industrial users, classified as Maximum Demand (MD) customers, are to receive 20 per cent of the average energy billed per MD customer in February 2026. Prepaid customers are to receive token credits, while postpaid customers are to receive bill adjustments, with February compensation due by 31 May 2026 and March compensation due by 30 June 2026. NERC also directed Distribution Companies (DisCos), the companies that deliver electricity to end-users, not to offset compensation credits against existing customer debts.

The cost of unreliable power does not stay inside the electricity bill. When a factory, supermarket, estate, logistics operator or cold-storage facility pays a premium tariff but still runs diesel backup, those costs move into production, inventory protection, food storage, transport pricing and consumer prices. Customer credits help, but the wider sector still has to manage generation limits, revenue collection and payments across the supply chain.

David Precious, Senior Market Analyst at EBC Financial Group, said, “Nigeria’s power reform is moving into an accountability phase. Higher tariffs can only build confidence if customers and businesses receive the level of supply they are paying for. NERC’s Band A compensation order and the rollout of net billing point to the same market test: electricity reform must now be measured by delivery, transparent credit mechanisms and whether businesses can reduce diesel backup costs.”

Net Billing Turns Self-Generation into a Business-Cost Question

Beyond customer credits, NERC’s Net Billing Regulations 2026, published on 3 June 2026, open a separate question for businesses already spending heavily on diesel and backup power: whether renewable self-generation can become a more reliable and cost-effective alternative. The regulation creates a framework for eligible customers to generate renewable electricity, use what they need and export any surplus power to distribution networks.

Many Nigerian businesses already invest in generators, diesel storage, solar systems or hybrid power because grid supply is not reliable enough for production, refrigeration, logistics, retail operations and business continuity. Net billing could make that investment more efficient by allowing eligible users to recover some value from excess renewable power rather than leaving it unused.

The framework is not designed as an instant solution for every household. Qualifying solar or renewable systems must have installed capacity between 50 kilowatt peak (kWp) and 1.5 megawatt peak (MWp), making it more immediately relevant to commercial users, estates, shopping centres, manufacturers, institutions and larger facilities with enough electricity demand and capital to invest. Participants will also need approval from their local distribution company, a technical feasibility review, a Net Billing Agreement and NERC registration. Qualifying systems will require meters that record both electricity consumed and electricity exported.

Whether net billing delivers real savings will come down to implementation. Exported electricity will be credited at an export tariff approved by NERC, which will not necessarily match the price businesses pay for retail electricity purchases. The specific rate and how payments will be settled are still to be confirmed by NERC and DisCos. That export tariff, together with metering, approval timelines and settlement reliability, will determine whether net billing reduces actual costs or remains a regulation that has not yet translated into commercial value.

New Minister Adds an Implementation Test

The appointment of a new Minister of Power adds a wider delivery test to both reforms. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu swore in Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe as Minister of Power on 8 June 2026, after the Senate cleared his appointment on 6 May 2026, according to the State House. For businesses and investors, the question is not only whether Nigeria has new rules, but whether the sector can implement them consistently. That means Band A credits must be applied on time, net billing approvals must be workable in practice, export tariffs must be transparent and distribution companies must collect enough revenue to keep paying generators and transmission companies.

What Nigeria’s Electricity Market Will Watch Next

The next phase of Nigeria’s electricity reform may be judged by whether existing rules work in practice, not by new announcements. By 30 June 2026, the March Band A compensation deadline will show whether premium-tariff customers receive visible credits when supply falls short. Net billing faces the same practical test: whether approvals, meters, export tariffs and settlement processes can turn renewable self-generation into a real cost-saving option for eligible businesses. At the same time, both reforms raise the operating bar for DisCos. They must credit customers when service falls short, collect revenue efficiently and keep payments moving to generators and transmission companies. Higher electricity prices may improve sector revenue, but they will not be enough if businesses still have to pay twice: once for premium grid supply and again for diesel backup.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

America Borrows Power, Nigeria Borrows Survival

Published

on

America Nigeria borrowing

By Blaise Udunze

Findings show that the United States owes more than $36 trillion while Nigeria owes over N159.28 trillion, with external debt now standing at approximately $51.8 billion. At first glance, when comparing the debt profiles of the world’s largest economy and Africa’s largest economy, it may seem misplaced. America can borrow almost indefinitely because it issues the world’s reserve currency. Nigeria cannot. Yet both countries are confronting a similar worry. This has led to asking, when does debt cease to be a tool for development and become a permanent feature of national survival?

The difference is that while America may be testing the limits of how much debt a superpower can carry, Nigeria is testing how much debt a fragile developing economy can sustain before it begins to mortgage its future.

The latest proposal by the federal government to secure another $1.25 billion World Bank facility under the Nigeria Actions for Investment and Jobs Acceleration Programme has once again reignited a debate that refuses to disappear. What appears to be far from the daily lived experience of Nigerians over the years is having government officials insisting that the loan will support investment, expand access to finance, improve electricity, enhance digital services, and create jobs. According to the claims, these are worthy objectives. But Nigerians have heard similar promises before.

The more important question is no longer whether Nigeria should borrow. Virtually every modern economy borrows. The real question which calls for critical concern is what exactly Nigeria is borrowing for, and why the benefits of decades of borrowing remain largely invisible in the everyday lives of millions of citizens. This is where the national conversation becomes uncomfortable.

Funny enough, over the years, successive governments have justified borrowing as a necessary response to development deficits. Yet despite rising debt levels, many Nigerians struggle to identify corresponding improvements in their lived experiences. This justification has kept many wondering as the roads remain dilapidated, public hospitals are overwhelmed, and the electricity supply also remains unreliable. Talk of the public education system, this has continued to deteriorate badly, and unemployment remains stubbornly high. Inflation has eroded incomes, with the cost of cooking gas hitting N2,400 per kg, while businesses struggle under the weight of high operating costs.

If borrowing is supposed to finance development, where is the development? The concern becomes even more urgent and highly alarming when viewed against the backdrop of Nigeria’s worsening fiscal position. According to the Debt Management Office, public debt has climbed to over N159 trillion. With this outrageous figure, more troubling is the fact that debt servicing now consumes an alarming share of government revenue, which has continued to cripple economic growth and compromise the future. This development caught the attention of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, as it recently noted that Nigeria’s debt-service-to-revenue ratio remains among the highest in the world. In simple and practical terms, this implies that the government is spending an increasingly large portion of what it earns paying creditors rather than investing in infrastructure, healthcare, education, security, or economic expansion.

This is the hallmark of a debt trap. The danger is not necessarily that Nigeria will default tomorrow. The danger is that the nation becomes trapped in a vicious cycle where governments borrow to finance deficits, then borrow again to service existing obligations, and then borrow even more to cover the consequences of previous borrowing. That cycle is already becoming visible.

Come to think of it, President Bola Tinubu’s administration has boldly defended borrowing as necessary to support reforms, cushion economic shocks, and stimulate growth. Yet critics have continued to point to the fact that since May 2023, borrowing has accelerated significantly.

According to economic analyst Dele Oye, the current administration has added approximately N65.9 trillion to Nigeria’s debt stock within just two years, a figure that exceeds several multiples of what Nigeria accumulated during its first five decades after independence.

Whether one agrees with the politics surrounding that claim is secondary. The underlying concern remains valid since debt is growing far faster than the visible capacity of the economy to generate sustainable revenue. This is why comparisons with the United States are useful.

America’s debt is enormous, but debt sustainability is not determined by the size of debt alone. It is determined by economic productivity. The United States supports its debt burden through a diversified economy, deep capital markets, technological innovation, globally competitive corporations, advanced research institutions, and an unmatched ability to attract global investment.

Debt is not what sustains America. Productivity does. Unlike Nigeria, it continues to rely heavily on crude oil revenues, a narrow tax base, volatile foreign exchange earnings, and a fragile manufacturing sector. The critical difference is that every dollar borrowed by Nigeria therefore carries greater risks than every dollar borrowed by the United States.

When America borrows, it borrows largely in its own currency. When Nigeria borrows externally, it exposes itself to exchange-rate risks that can dramatically increase repayment costs whenever the naira weakens, as this calls for utmost caution. Every currency depreciation effectively inflates the burden of external obligations. What appears manageable today can become overwhelming tomorrow. This reality makes Nigeria’s current debt trajectory particularly concerning, which is the truth.

The World Bank itself has raised concerns about governance risks and structural weaknesses within Nigeria’s fiscal architecture. Even more troubling are recent revelations indicating that more than N34.5 trillion was reportedly deducted through pre-distribution mechanisms before revenues reached the Federation Account between 2023 and 2025. According to the findings, approximately 41 per cent of government revenues were removed as first-line charges before distribution.

Whichever way it is viewed, perhaps as fiscal leakages, weak oversight, or institutional inefficiency, the implications are profound and of critical concern. If we must begin to tell ourselves the factual truth, a nation cannot continue borrowing aggressively while simultaneously failing to maximise the value of revenues it already generates.

This brings us to the central question confronting Nigeria today. The point is, are these loans building future productive capacity, or are they merely financing continuity?

Borrowing can be justified when it funds projects that expand economic output. Investments in power generation, transport infrastructure, agriculture, industrialisation, technology, and education can create long-term growth that eventually pays for the debt itself. In such cases, debt becomes a bridge to prosperity.

But it must be known that borrowing to fund recurrent expenditure, sustain bloated government structures, finance consumption, cover inefficiencies, or service previous debts transforms borrowing into a treadmill. The irony here is that the country runs harder every year but remains trapped in the same place. Unfortunately, much of Nigeria’s fiscal reality increasingly resembles the latter.

The tragedy is that this debt burden is not abstract. It is already affecting ordinary Nigerians. The adverse implication and critical point are that every naira directed toward debt servicing is a naira unavailable for schools, hospitals, security, electricity, or social protection. Every external loan increases future repayment obligations. Every missed opportunity to invest borrowed funds productively transfers today’s policy failures to future generations.

The consequences are visible everywhere. Businesses face prohibitively high borrowing costs. Today in Nigeria, it is no longer news that manufacturers struggle with energy expenses, which adversely affect the citizens. The same applies to youth unemployment, which remains widespread. Also, infrastructure deficits persist. Another critical issue is that states remain heavily dependent on monthly allocations from the federal level. With the developments, economic growth remains too weak to significantly improve living standards.

The result is a contradiction in which debt rises while prosperity stagnates. This is perhaps the greatest lesson Nigeria must learn from America’s debt experience.

The debate should not focus exclusively on how much debt a nation carries. The more important progressive question is whether the economy is productive enough to sustain that debt.

What every Nigerian should know is that Nigeria as a country cannot borrow its way to prosperity because it must first strengthen the foundations that generate sustainable growth. With the lingering challenging surrounding the borrowing and the mountain of debts, one key fact is that it cannot rely indefinitely on external creditors while neglecting domestic productivity. Also, it cannot continue to depend on oil revenues while failing to broaden its tax base. Another loose end that has been a critical matter is that it cannot expect debt-financed development without strong institutions, transparency, accountability and effective project execution.

The solutions are neither mysterious nor impossible. This entails that Nigeria must aggressively expand domestic revenue mobilisation without suffocating businesses and ensure it digitises tax administration, eliminates leakages, enforce fiscal responsibility laws. Also, it must reduce the cost of governance, strengthen public procurement systems, while ensuring that every borrowed naira and kobo is linked to measurable economic outcomes.

Equally important, the government must rebuild public trust. The truth is that citizens are more willing to support reforms when they can see tangible results. Some of the developments in the past that have continued to erode public trust are when subsidy savings are announced, people expect better roads, improved healthcare, reliable electricity, and enhanced security. When new loans are obtained, they expect visible projects and measurable returns, but the reverse has been the case. Those at the helm of affairs of this country must understand that transparency is not merely good governance; it is an economic necessity. History offers a warning.

In 2006, under the leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria celebrated its exit from the Paris Club debt burden after securing one of Africa’s most significant debt relief achievements. Not too long but for a brief period, the country stood relatively free from the crushing obligations that had constrained development for decades. Two decades later, that achievement appears increasingly distant.

The danger is not simply that Nigeria is borrowing. The danger is that borrowing is becoming normalised as a substitute for difficult reforms.

A nation can borrow to build industries or borrow to pay bills. It can borrow to create future wealth or borrow to postpone present challenges. One path expands prosperity; the other compounds dependency.

America’s debt mountain demonstrates that even wealthy nations are not immune to the consequences of structural borrowing. Nigeria’s debt burden demonstrates how much more dangerous that reality becomes when economic productivity fails to keep pace. Borrowing can buy time. It cannot buy prosperity.

Sooner or later, every nation must generate the economic value necessary to justify the debts it accumulates. Nigeria’s future will depend not on how much it can borrow, but on how effectively it can produce, innovate, industrialise, and grow.

That is the lesson hidden underneath America’s debt mountain. It is also the lesson Nigeria ignores at its own peril.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Trending