‘Nigerians don’t need 24-hour power, just night and morning

Nigeria's electricity sector has long been framed as a binary choice: either the nation achieves universal 24-hour power supply or it fails. But human rights activist Deji Adeyanju is reframing this debate with a pragmatic counterargument—and one that resonates with the economic realities facing Africa's most populous country.

Adeyanju's assertion that Nigerians don't need round-the-clock electricity, but rather reliable night and morning supply, cuts through years of grandiose power-sector pledges and forces policymakers to confront an uncomfortable truth: the pursuit of an aspirational 24/7 grid may be perpetuating underfunded, half-measures that deliver neither full service nor meaningful progress.

## What's driving this shift in Nigeria's power conversation?

Nigeria's electricity challenge remains one of the continent's most intractable infrastructure problems. The Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) operates a grid averaging 4,000–5,000 MW of available capacity, far below the estimated 13,000+ MW required to meet current demand. Blackouts remain endemic despite $30+ billion invested since privatization in 2013. Yet the narrative has consistently focused on "universal 24-hour supply" as the measurable goal—a target that has repeatedly disappointed citizens and investors alike.

Adeyanju's perspective introduces economics into the equation. Night and morning electricity—covering peak household demand (19:00–23:00) and early-morning work hours (05:00–09:00)—would address the majority of residential and small-business energy needs. This tactical shift allows the grid operator to concentrate generation, transmission, and distribution resources on hours when marginal benefit is highest and waste is lower. It's a recognition that perfect is the enemy of functional.

## Why does this matter for Nigeria's economy and foreign investors?

The implications ripple across sectors. Manufacturing SMEs, which employ over 25 million Nigerians, operate chiefly during daylight hours and rely on generators for after-hours backup. A guaranteed 8–12 hours of reliable supply (spanning evening peak and morning production windows) would reduce their diesel consumption by an estimated 30–40%, lowering operational costs and cutting carbon emissions. Commercial agriculture, tourism, hospitality, and telecommunications would similarly benefit from predictable load windows rather than unpredictable 6–8 hour outages scattered across the 24-hour cycle.

For international investors, this represents a critical policy signal: the Nigerian government may finally be moving toward *achievable* infrastructure targets rather than aspirational ones. When power commitments are realistic and measurable, project finance, FDI in manufacturing, and data-center expansion become bankable again. The Central Bank of Nigeria's own economic forecasts link grid stability directly to manufacturing sector recovery—currently flat at 9% of GDP.

## What are the risks of this approach?

The danger lies in permanence. If night-and-morning supply becomes normalized as "acceptable," there's a risk that infrastructure investment plateaus before reaching the full capacity needed for industrial competitiveness or higher-value exports. Competing economies in Kenya, Ghana, and South Africa are aggressively pursuing higher grid availability (70–80%+), which could push manufacturing investment away from Nigeria by 2030.

Adeyanju's reframe should be read not as a ceiling but as a strategic milestone—a way to reset expectations, deliver measurable wins, and rebuild confidence in Nigeria's power sector before pursuing broader ambitions.

---

##