*Asks Court To Enforce States’ Shareholding Interests In DisCos
The Society of Public Interest Lawyers in Nigeria (SPI-LAW) has filed an action at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, asking the court to determine the ownership structure, valuation methodology and privatisation process of Nigeria’s Electricity Distribution Companies.
The Originating Summons, in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1213/2026, was filed on 1 September 2026 at 15:21 WAT, with the claimant listed as The Incorporated Trustees of the Society of Public Interest Lawyers in Nigeria.
The suit is brought against five defendants: the Attorney-General of the Federation, joined as the Chief Law Officer and representative of the Federal Government; the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, joined over its involvement in the ownership, control and management of the Federal Government’s interests in the DisCos; the Bureau of Public Enterprises, joined over its role as implementing agency of the privatisation programme; the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, joined over its role in the valuation of State Government investments; and the National Council on Privatisation, joined over its approval of the privatisation framework and the resolutions on the ownership and equity structure of the companies.
The summons is taken out by Aderemi Oguntoye, SAN, with Kunle Edun, SAN, John Aikpokpo Martins and Solomon Oho as counsel to the claimant.
The action is brought pursuant to Order 3 Rules 6, 7 and 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, sections 1 to 3 of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act, Cap P38 LFN 2004, sections 6(6)(b) and 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
It is framed as a matter of the interpretation of sections 1 to 3 of the Privatisation Act and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005, in relation to the statutory governance structure for Federal Government equity in the DisCos. The defendants are required to enter appearance within thirty days of service.
The court is invited to determine three questions.
The first is whether, having regard to the powers and functions of the National Council on Privatisation under sections 1 to 3 of the Privatisation Act, and the resolutions and framework approved by the Council on State Government participation in the DisCos, the Attorney-General, the BPE and the NCP are bound to give effect to the interests of the respective State Governments as determined under the approved framework.
The second is whether, having regard to the valuation and confirmation of the investments and contributions of the State Governments contained in the valuation report issued by NERC pursuant to the approved framework, the first to fourth defendants are bound, within their respective statutory and institutional powers, to recognise and give effect to the interests attributable to those States.
The third is whether, having regard to the subsequent steps taken by MOFI and the contrary position taken by the BPE concerning the ownership, custody and management of the Federal Government’s equity interests, the defendants can lawfully administer, transfer or otherwise deal with those interests without first giving effect to the State Governments’ interests arising under the NCP framework and the NERC valuation.
SPI-LAW seeks three declarations and three orders.
It asks for a declaration that the resolutions and framework approved by the NCP on State Government participation in the ownership and equity structure of the DisCos form part of the approved privatisation framework governing those companies.
A third declaration is sought that the competing claims of MOFI and the BPE over the ownership, custody, control or management of the Federal Government’s equity interests cannot derogate from or prejudice the interests attributable to the State Governments under the framework and the valuation.
A third declaration is sought that the competing claims of MOFI and the BPE over the ownership, custody, control or management of the Federal Government’s equity interests cannot derogate from or prejudice the interests attributable to the State Governments under the framework and the valuation.
The orders sought would direct all five defendants, within the scope of their respective statutory powers, to take all lawful steps to recognise and give effect to the States’ interests; direct MOFI and the BPE, in dealing with the Federal Government’s equity, to ensure that no step taken by either prejudices or defeats the interests attributable to the States; and direct the relevant defendants to take the steps necessary to give effect to the States’ shareholding, including regularisation of the relevant shareholding records and instruments where necessary.
The claimant also asks for such further orders as the court may deem fit.
The supporting affidavit is deposed to by Solomon Oho, a legal practitioner and member of SPI-LAW, who states that the issues before the court are substantially documentary and arise from the approved privatisation framework, official correspondence, regulatory materials and decisions of the relevant institutions.
Five exhibits carry the case.
Exhibit A is the approval and resolutions of the National Council on Privatisation, said to have been made at its meeting in 2012, which the claimant states approved the framework governing the ownership and equity structure of the DisCos and made provision for determining the interests of State Governments based on the valuation of their actual investments and contributions.