Publication

Recently, the 10th Senate of Nigeria attempted to corrode the integrity of the amendment to the Electoral Act 2022, prompting a wave of backlash and anger. The amendment to the Electoral Act 2022 was enacted to legally mandate that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) electronically transmit electoral results. This was crucial to fostering transparency and legitimacy.

Concerns were mainly raised by civil society groups, electoral monitors, and advocates who strongly voiced concerns about the possibility of further degradation. This backlash and heavy public concern follow the National Assembly’s refusal to electronically transmit the results of the recently passed Electoral Act 2026. These worries have seemingly bled into the hopes and goals of the upcoming 2027 elections.

This corrosive process started long before that, though. The upper legislative chamber had previously passed a revision to the Electoral Act. This revision would weaken the use of technology through real-time transmission of ballot outcomes from polling units to the INEC’s Result Viewing (IREV) portal during elections.

The majority of Nigerians express apprehension and anger, highlighting a refusal to accept "band-aid solutions." Surging public outrage led Senate leaders to push back with contradictory and illogical explanations, broadly leaving room for assumptions about the lack of consensus among legislators in the patriotic resolve to do right by establishing a credible

legislative framework to support transparent, inclusive, and credible polls in the country.

Previously, Senate President Godswill Akpabio announced that Clause 60 was adopted “as amended and not as recommended.” This claim largely signified the removal of Section 60(3). Section 60(3) mandates the real-time electronic transmission of polling results to the INEC’s IREV portal, which was crucial to the initial cause of electoral transparency. This statement almost immediately galvanized backlash due to the severe threat to critical electoral cog ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Actors such as Yiaga Africa, the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), and other electoral observers were extremely quick to scrutinize the Senate's actions, noting that the amendment severely undermined credibility. Within the next twenty-four hours, thirteen senators originating from a variety of political parties, led by Enyinnaya Abaribe, held a press briefing attempting to provide clarity. Abaribe honed in on media sensationalization as the cause of public outrage. Abaribe maintained that the abolishment of electronically transmitting results had never occurred but had merely clarified the wording of the provision, according to The Guardian.

Regardless of this attempted dismissal, inconsistencies and tensions between the Senate President’s initial statement and subsequent explanations have seemingly proven legitimacy in public skepticism. This controversy illuminates the constitutional criticality of maintaining transparency and order under the electoral law. A similar parallel was Peter Obi v. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565. In this case, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled on the constitutional tenure of a state governor.

The case set a precedent for strict adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions by the stringent invalidation of actions that violated the constitutional tenure rule. This allowed for the ideological reinforcement that the undermining of solidified electoral safeguards would not be allowed scot-free.

Any opacity or loosening of statutory safeguards, in this case the mandatory electronic transmission of ballots, raises legitimate concerns about compliance, transparency, and trust in the electoral system.