REA: Tracking the Billions for Solar Energy 

SOStainabilityWeekly

Edited by Oke Epia, E-mail: sostainability01@gmail.com  | WhatsApp: +234 8034000706

Washing and Hushing

In recent weeks, the leadership of the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) has engaged in a game of hide-and-seek with the House of Representatives. The House committee on renewable energy has had to threaten sanctions on the agency’s chief executive, Abba Aliyu, for failing to honour invitations to answer some questions. This drama raises a fundamental question: after years of federal allocations, foreign-backed electrification programmes, and climate-linked funding, what is the verifiable status of Nigeria’s renewable energy projects and who is accountable for tracking them? The public deserves to know, in clear terms, what has been delivered, what is still in progress, and who is responsible for monitoring every kobo.

Why is the REA Avoiding Scrutiny?

To be clear, the House committee is not seeking a casual encounter: its letter to Mr. Aliyu cited constitutional powers and itemized figures down to the kobo and penny. It demanded procurement files, audit reports, contractor details, beneficiary addresses, payment vouchers, and implementation strategies. The question hanging in the air is why has it been so difficult for the REA’s boss leadership to sit before lawmakers and answer their questions?

When a public institution manages over ₦151.7 billion in appropriations for solar mini-grids, solar home systems, and streetlights, plus another ₦12 billion for the electrification of universities and teaching hospitals, plus ₦13.08 billion under the Rural Electrification Fund, scrutiny cannot be termed harassment. It is governance. When that same agency oversees more than $550 million from the World Bank and AfDB, $750.4 million under the DARES programme, $12.4 million from South Korea, $8.9 million from Germany/EU, and multiple additional grants from GEF/UNDP and global energy alliances, oversight cannot be a mere political theatre. It is a fiduciary responsibility. The committee sought information on who the contractors are, details of the procurement plans, information on bid evaluation reports, audit certifications, and the beneficiary communities. Why should the committee invoke constitutional provisions to compel appearance? Why should a hearing require escalation when transparency should be routine? If the books are clean, why resist opening them?

The energizing education programme spans federal universities and teaching hospitals across Bauchi, Kano, Benue, Delta, Ebonyi, Anambra, Sokoto, Abuja, Kaduna, Abia, Cross River, Ogun, Borno, Yobe, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Ondo, Imo, Adamawa, Katsina, Nasarawa, and Kogi. Solar hybrid plants were installed with the promise of reliable electricity for laboratories, wards, hostels, and research facilities. Are these systems operating at full capacity today? Are they producing the megawatts promised, contracted and paid for? Are maintenance frameworks active, funded, and monitored? Or are some of these installations already degrading under weak oversight?

It is trite to state that renewable energy infrastructure is not self-sustaining simply because it is solar. Mini-grids fail when components are substandard. Batteries degrade when procurement cuts corners. Systems collapse when maintenance is an afterthought. Value is lost quietly not in dramatic headlines, but in dimming output. And that is precisely why contracting and domiciliation matters. If projects were assigned to contractors without adequate technical depth, the result is not just inefficiency; it is systemic waste. Avoiding parliamentary hearings sends the wrong signal not just domestically, but globally.

The Tensions and the Issues 

Lawmakers are demanding accountability from the REA in order to clear documentation gaps, project delivery concerns, and the utilization of foreign grants received since 2015. Concerns were raised about whether due diligence processes were strictly followed in the award, delivery, and payment for the jobs. When renewable energy projects are contracted to entities without demonstrable technical competence, the risk is not merely inefficiency; it is systemic value erosion. Solar and hybrid systems require precision engineering, quality components, and maintenance frameworks. A poorly executed mini-grid can collapse within months, leaving communities worse off than before. The committee’s investigation into the renewable sector’s funding trail signals institutional recognition that oversight cannot stop at appropriation. It must extend to execution.

Nigeria’s renewable energy agenda is closely tied to its climate commitments and engagement under frameworks championed by the United Nations, particularly SDG 7 and SDG 17. Foreign grants and concessional loans are premised on measurable development outcomes. Under SDG 17, financing partners share responsibility for monitoring and accountability. What monitoring frameworks are development partners applying to REA-implemented projects? Are independent audits publicly disclosed? Have performance reviews identified deficiencies since 2015? Sponsors and financiers have a duty to go beyond fund disbursement. They must insist on transparent reporting. They must demand independent monitoring. They must verify that the communities listed as beneficiaries are receiving continuous, functional power. The legislative focus on foreign grants received by the REA since 2015 underscores a broader concern about consolidated reporting. Nigeria has engaged multilateral institutions and climate finance mechanisms to support renewable deployment. Yet publicly accessible disclosures detailing cumulative funds received, disbursed, and linked to specific operational projects are not readily available. 

Accountability Goes Beyond the REA

However, the accountability chain is broader than the REA alone. The Federal Ministry of Power, which sets policy direction, has questions to answer. So too are the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), which is mandated to ensure competitive and transparent contract awards; the Office of the Auditor-General, which is constitutionally empowered to audit federal expenditure; and the Budget Office of the Federation, which is saddled with routine reporting of budget implementation. Nigeria’s renewable energy drive is too important to fail quietly. It represents hope for stable power, economic growth, and climate resilience. Therefore, relevant MDAs of the Federal Government must play their role effectively by confronting these unavoidable questions. 

This page will keep a keen eye on this probe due to the pertinent questions that need resolution: What is the total value of renewable energy funds channeled through the REA since 2015? How many projects are fully operational today? How many are under remediation? Have independent audits been conducted and published? What corrective actions should follow legislative scrutiny? The ongoing legislative scrutiny provides an opportunity for reform rather than defensiveness or evasiveness. A national renewable energy dashboard, mandatory quarterly performance disclosures, independent third-party verification, and transparent grant reporting could restore confidence. Clean energy must not become another chapter in Nigeria’s history of opaque public expenditure. If billions have been committed to light up communities, then the books must be as illuminated as the solar panels themselves.

Spotlight

Nigeria Climate Investment Showcase Billed for London   

 

As countries around the world engage in diplomacy and negotiations to attract funding for climate projects, arrangements have been concluded to showcase Nigeria’s impressive policy strides and readiness for climate financing at this year’s London Climate Action Week (LCAW).    

SOStainability has partnered with GLOBE Legislators to host the Nigeria Climate Investment Summit (NCIS) as an integral part of the 2026 London Climate Action Week in June. The NCIS will bring together senior Nigerian officials, including the leadership and members of the National Assembly, Heads of Ministries, Departments and Agencies, key regulators, corporate organisations, and other pertinent actors alongside members of the UK investment community, Development Finance Institutions, regulators, institutional investors, businesses, and diaspora capital networks. The Summit provides a structured platform to present Nigeria’s climate policy trajectory, highlight investable transition opportunities, and showcase institutional ESG performance ahead of a planned Climate Action Week in Nigeria.

A statement by Oke Epia, CEO of SOStainability, said the summit will convene several specially curated segments, including policy dialogue, technical presentations, investment showcase, and innovation exhibition. There will also be targeted investor engagements to match funding with market-ready opportunities as part of the delivery of a pipeline of productive and sustainable outcomes, including collaborations and exchanges in climate financing, abatement technologies, community resilience, and technical support to aid the implementation of Nigeria’s carbon market framework and the fulfilment of its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The statement said: “SOStainability is excited to co-host this high-level Nigeria climate investment summit with GLOBE Legislators as a special platform for the country to engage the world’s capital of climate finance, green investments flow, innovative technologies, and knowledge exchange opportunities in advancing the fulfillment of its climate ambitions as expressed, for example, in the carbon market framework and other policy initiatives. The Nigeria climate investment summit has been deliberately integrated into the LCAW, given its established role as a major global convening on climate transition action and diplomacy, and to take advantage of London as the global transition finance centre. The summit is designed to drive meaningful conversations and lock in the required investments and tailored technical partnerships on Nigeria’s recently launched carbon market framework and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).”

GLOBE is the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment. It is a non-partisan, cross-party body dedicated to improving climate governance across the world. SOStainability isa global enterprise dedicated to promoting sustainability and responsible climate action across businesses, communities, governments, and non-governmental entities.

Trends and Threads

Imperative of Participatory Budgeting for Climate Action in Nigeria

Participatory budgeting in the climate change context is not simply about consultation. It is about whether communities most exposed to climate risks influence how adaptation and resilience funds are allocated. In Nigeria, where flooding, desertification, erosion, and pollution disproportionately affect low-income and rural populations, climate budgeting is inseparable from social justice. The central question remains: does Nigeria’s climate governance framework genuinely institutionalize citizen participation in climate spending, or does participation remain largely procedural, elitist, and symbolic?

The Legal Foundation: What the Climate Change Act Requires

The Climate Change Act provides Nigeria’s primary statutory framework for climate governance. Part VI, Section 22 of the Act mandates the establishment of Climate Change Desks across Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), as well as in some private organisations.

The intention is clear. Climate considerations must be mainstreamed across sectors. Ministries responsible for agriculture, water resources, environment, works, finance, and planning are expected to integrate climate mitigation and adaptation into their policies and programmes. However, while Section 22 institutionalises policy coordination, it does not explicitly create a centralised climate budgeting structure. Climate Desks may exist, but without a defined fiscal coordination mechanism, there is a disconnect between climate policy, budgeting, and expenditure.

International public finance research consistently shows that climate governance becomes effective when supported by climate budget tagging systems, dedicated climate finance units, and transparent expenditure tracking. Countries that adopt such systems are better able to monitor adaptation spending and assess impact. Without a structured fiscal architecture, climate commitments risk remaining declaratory rather than transformative.

 From Climate Desks to the Budget Office

If Section 22 mandates climate desks, logic demands a complementary structure responsible for ensuring that climate allocations are properly designed, tracked and evaluated. This is where the Budget Office comes in: it should have a mechanism to identify and tag climate-related spending across MDAs, verify alignment with national adaptation priorities, and require evidence of community needs assessments before climate funds are mainstreamed into the national annual budget. Currently, climate spending is often embedded within broader sectoral allocations. Disaster management, irrigation, erosion control and renewable energy projects may exist in the budget, but they are rarely presented and connected within a unified climate expenditure framework. This makes participatory oversight difficult. Communities cannot meaningfully engage with allocations they cannot clearly see or understand. Participatory budgeting for climate resilience requires granular clarity. Without it, participation remains fragmented and wishful.

The Role of the National Council on Climate Change

The National Council on Climate Change is the statutory body established to coordinate and supervise climate policy implementation under the Climate Change Act. The Council is tasked with overseeing Nigeria’s National Climate Change Action Plan, aligning national development with climate targets, and guiding implementation across MDAs. In principle, this mandate places the Council at the centre of climate budgeting oversight. It has the authority to issue guidelines, coordinate inter-ministerial efforts, and ensure compliance with national commitments, including Nigeria’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement framework.Has the Council Secretariat institutionalised mechanisms that require ministries to demonstrate how communities were consulted before climate-related allocations were finalised? Are climate desks in MDAs required to document community needs assessments, particularly in vulnerable localities, before submitting budget proposals? Is there a standardised climate budget tagging system across federal MDAs that allows citizens to track adaptation and resilience spending? Publicly available information shows growing emphasis on coordination and policy alignment, but less clarity on structured, enforceable citizen participation in climate-specific budget formulation.

The Role of the Ministry of Budget and National Planning

The Federal Ministry of Budget and National Planning is central to how Nigeria budgets for its national priorities, including climate and environmental resilience. This ministry leads the preparation of the annual appropriation bill, shapes the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, and advises the government on national development priorities. In December 2025, President Bola Tinubu presented the 2026 Appropriation Bill to the National Assembly — a ₦58.18 trillion budget titled “Budget of Consolidation, Renewed Resilience and Shared Prosperity.” This budget was transmitted for legislative review and is now being considered by lawmakers. Within this framework, the Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning and the Budget Office of the Federation coordinate how public funds, including those related to climate action, are proposed and allocated. Perhaps, a dedicated mechanism within both organs of the federal government would help ensure that climate allocations are systematically identified, tracked and informed by structured citizen engagement. 

Open Government Partnership Commitments and the Participation Gap

Nigeria is a member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), and under its national commitments, government institutions have pledged to strengthen citizen engagement across the budget cycle. The Federal Ministry of Budget and National Planning has committed to pre-budget consultations, improved publication of budget documents and opportunities for citizen monitoring. Yet independent budget transparency assessments over the years have shown persistent weaknesses in timely access to draft documents, limited civic education on budget content and uneven feedback mechanisms. When climate allocations are embedded in complex line items without clear tagging or simplified summaries, meaningful participation becomes difficult. Participatory budgeting requires early-stage involvement, not post-approval validation. When consultations occur after allocations are largely determined, community influence becomes minimal. Climate-vulnerable populations need structured platforms to articulate priorities before figures are finalized.

Climate Impacts and the Urgency of Inclusion

Climate change in Nigeria is not theoretical. Annual flooding devastates riverine and urban communities. Northern regions face advancing desertification. Coastal erosion threatens livelihoods. Heat stress affects agricultural productivity. These realities underscore why participatory climate budgeting matters. Local communities often possess detailed knowledge of risk patterns, infrastructure weaknesses and adaptation priorities. Without incorporating this knowledge into fiscal planning, government spending may misalign with lived realities. For example, flood mitigation funds allocated centrally may not reflect localised drainage challenges or community relocation needs. Irrigation projects may overlook smallholder farmers’ access constraints. Participatory mechanisms would reduce such mismatches.

Key Accountability Questions for Climate Governance

The Climate Change Act provides the structure. The National Council on Climate Change provides coordination. The budget process provides financial instruments. Yet accountability depends on how these components interact. This leads to unavoidable questions. Is the National Council on Climate Change auditing ministries to verify that climate desks (where they exist) are influencing climate allocations in a participatory manner? Has it developed guidelines linking Section 22 obligations to budget preparation timelines? Are development finance institutions required to disclose how communities benefit from climate financing? Where participatory mechanisms exist, are they early enough in the cycle to shape draft allocations rather than merely validate them? Some progress is visible in Nigeria’s increasing emphasis on adaptation financing, disaster management funds, and climate-resilient agriculture within recent federal budgets. Yet progress in allocation does not automatically translate into participatory legitimacy. Without structured inclusion of vulnerable communities, climate budgeting risks reinforcing the same inequalities that climate policy seeks to address.