By TEMITOPE MESEWONRUN
In recent days, public outrage has trailed reports of governmental fees and permit requirements imposed on certain solar installations in Lagos State. Although the State Government has clarified that the requirement is limited to installations within designated government-owned housing estates, and not a blanket tax on all solar users, the controversy has exposed a deeper constitutional and governance question: Can a government that has failed to provide stable electricity morally or legally burden citizens for privately providing it to themselves?
My respectful answer is this: Government may regulate for safety; it must not weaponise regulation into revenue extraction. And Nigerians are right to be vigilant.
The Constitution Speaks First: Welfare is the Primary Purpose of Government
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), provides in unambiguous terms: “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”
Though housed within Chapter II, that provision remains the philosophical and moral foundation of legitimate governance in Nigeria.
Electricity today is no longer a luxury. It is indispensable to healthcare, education, business, security, and modern human dignity.
Where the State fails to provide so fundamental a utility, and citizens, at enormous private expense, resort to solar alternatives for survival, it is deeply troubling for the same State to erect fiscal or bureaucratic barriers around that self-help.
Regulation is Lawful; Revenue Disguised as Regulation is Not
To be legally balanced, one must concede that government may regulate installations affecting structural integrity, fire safety, shared infrastructure, and planning compliance. That is, in substance, the justification advanced for the Lagos policy that solar installations in state-owned housing estates alter common structures and therefore require prior approval.
That distinction matters. However, the legality of regulation does not make every fee justifiable.
A regulatory power exercised disproportionately, arbitrarily, or as a revenue-generating mechanism may become unlawful in substance, even if lawful in form.
Government must never forget: The Constitution empowers it to govern for the welfare of the people, not to exploit their resilience. Any policy that makes survival more expensive in a failing system deserves the closest scrutiny.
The law is settled that no public authority may impose financial burdens on citizens without lawful authority.
In Audu v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62977(SC), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that fees demanded by public authorities must be prescribed by law or proper regulation.
Likewise, in A.-G. of Abia State & Ors v. Imo Transport Co. Ltd (SC/284/2017, delivered 7 February 2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that no levy or tax may be imposed except with valid legislative backing.
Earlier, in A.O. Williams v. Lagos State Development & Property Corporation (1975) 1 NMLR 118, the Supreme Court condemned the imposition of unsupported charges under administrative guise.
The legal position therefore remains clear: Government cannot convert regulatory discretion into a vehicle for arbitrary financial exactions.
The Danger Lies Not Only in The Fee: But in the Precedent
The concern of Nigerians is neither irrational nor exaggerated. History teaches us that today’s “limited administrative fee” often becomes tomorrow’s expanded levy.
Public alarm is therefore not merely about present policy. It is about resisting the normalisation of a dangerous governance philosophy that government may fail in service delivery and then profit from the coping mechanisms of its citizens.
If left unchallenged, what prevents future governments from imposing generator permits, borehole extraction levies, rainwater harvesting charges, or inverter registration fees?
A State that consistently fails in service delivery must tread carefully before monetising the coping mechanisms of its citizens.
No Fee Without Law; No Burden Without Justification
To demand payment from citizens without lawful basis is not regulation, it is exaction under colour of authority. The true legal inquiry is not whether government labels a charge an “administrative fee.” The true inquiry is:
What statute authorises it?
What public purpose does it serve?
Is it proportionate to the service rendered?
Or is it merely taxation by another name?
Where a fee is disproportionate, arbitrary, or used primarily to generate revenue under regulatory disguise, it may be vulnerable to legal challenge.
Nigeria Should Incentivise Solar, Not Chill It
At a time when nations across the world subsidise and encourage renewable energy adoption, Nigeria must not project hostility toward energy self-sufficiency.
Every unnecessary burden placed on solar adoption discourages private renewable investment, entrenches generator dependence, worsens environmental degradation, and delays national energy resilience.
In a country battling chronic power deficits, the rational policy posture is clear: Encourage citizens to reduce pressure on the national grid, do not punish them for doing so.
The Moral Dimension: Government Must Not Monetise its Own Failure
The gravest concern here is not technical legality.
It is moral legitimacy.
Nigerians install solar because the grid is unreliable; fuel prices are crushing; generator maintenance is unsustainable; and businesses cannot survive in darkness.
To burden those citizens with additional approvals, permits, or fees sends an indefensible message:
“We failed to provide electricity. But if you provide it for yourself, you must first pay us.”
That is not governance.
That is institutionalised hardship.
Conclusion: Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty
Whether or not the present Lagos measure is narrowly confined, the public outcry it generated is healthy and necessary. It reminds government that:
Citizens are watching.
Citizens understand policy creep.
Citizens will resist every attempt to monetise survival.
Government must never forget: The Constitution empowers it to govern for the welfare of the people, not to exploit their resilience. Any policy that makes survival more expensive in a failing system deserves the closest scrutiny.
And where necessary, it deserves resistance in the court of law and in the court of public opinion alike.
*Mesewonrun, a lawyer, writes from Akure.
READ ALSO:
INEC recognises Gabam-led SDP NWC, puts names on website
Suspected remains of army couple recovered in IPOB camp
Gunmen kill traditional ruler, wife, two others in Benue –Police
N’West, Central: Army intensifies offensives, intercepts explosives
Forget the propaganda, Amosun’s influence is unmatched
