OPINION:FirstPower Cannot Investigate Its Way Out of a Trust Crisis

By Titus Eleweke

FirstPower Electricity Distribution Company’s response to the Amudo controversy is revealing,not because it settles the matter, but because it exposes a deeper issue the company appears unwilling to confront.
On the surface, FirstPower’s position is clear. It denies levying residents ₦2.1 million. It claims to have spent ₦4 million repairing a vandalized transformer. It points to community leaders who now support its account and faults the journalist for refusing to provide who approved report.
On paper, that should close the case.
In reality, it does not.
This is not merely a dispute between a company and a reporter. It is a test of credibility,one that extends beyond official statements and carefully managed meetings.
In Nigeria’s electricity sector, trust is not built on corporate claims; it is shaped by lived experience.
And those experiences tell a different story.
Across the country, there is a persistent, often undocumented,pattern: when electricity infrastructure fails, communities frequently bear the cost of restoring it. These contributions may not be formally sanctioned, but they exist in practice, thriving in the gap between policy and reality.
That is the context in which the Amudo allegations must be understood.
Residents were reportedly discussing financial contributions before the story became public. There were cost estimates. There were concerns about repeated vandalism and possible internal collusion. These are not details that emerge in a vacuum.
Yet, following FirstPower’s intervention,and notably, after a power outage that forced engagement with the company,the narrative appears to shift. Payments are now described as “voluntary,” redirected toward security rather than repairs.
Such a sudden reframing invites skepticism. It raises a fundamental question: what changed the facts, or the pressure?
Equally troubling is the company’s approach to the journalist at the center of the story. Demanding disclosure of sources is not accountability; it reflects either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of journalistic practice. Source protection is a cornerstone of credible reporting, particularly in cases involving alleged wrongdoing.
More concerning still are allegations of intimidation.
Claims that electricity supply was cut to compel attendance at a meeting, that community leaders were pressured to revise their positions, and that the journalist was threatened and asked to retract his report suggest a response that goes beyond fact-finding.
Even if disputed, the perception alone is deeply damaging.
And in this sector, perception matters.
For many Nigerians, the idea that residents might contribute money to repair a transformer is not surprising,it is familiar. That familiarity is precisely what makes this case significant. It aligns too closely with public expectations of how electricity distribution often works.
This is where FirstPower is missing a critical opportunity.
Rather than treating the issue as a reputational threat to be managed, the company should confront it as a systemic risk that demands transparency. If no levy was officially authorized, then the possibility remains that such practices could exist informally within its operational structure.
If so, denial is not a solution.
What is required is openness,deliberate and verifiable.
FirstPower should move beyond internal reviews and subject its processes to public scrutiny. It should publish repair timelines, disclose contractor engagements, and provide clear records of cost responsibilities. It should also create safe channels for customers across Anambra State to report similar experiences without fear of retaliation.
Such steps would do far more to rebuild credibility than any number of press statements.
The reality is unavoidable: trust in electricity distribution companies are already fragile. Years of estimated billing, inconsistent supply, and opaque operations have fostered deep public skepticism.
Responding to allegations with defensiveness or worse, perceived coercion,only deepens that divide.
FirstPower now faces a choice. It can continue to challenge the narrative and control the message, or it can confront the uncomfortable possibility that something within its system is not working.
If communities are indeed contributing to infrastructure repairs that companies claim as their responsibility, then this is not a misunderstanding.
It is a systemic failure.
And no investigation however thorough will restore public confidence unless it is matched by transparency, accountability, and a genuine willingness to listen to the people the company exists to serve.