Follow Us on Google
From: Adesuwa Tsan, Abuja
The passage of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill by the Nigerian Senate has triggered widespread shock, disappointment, and renewed anxiety over the credibility of elections ahead of the 2027 general polls.
Rather than consolidating reforms expected to strengthen transparency and public confidence, political observers noted that the senate’s version of the amendment seems to have reopened unresolved debates around electronic transmission of results, compressed electoral timelines, and the balance between technology and discretion in election management.
For many election stakeholders, the sense of unease is magnified by the fact that the rejected provisions had earlier emerged from a joint legislative and stakeholder process involving both chambers of the National Assembly, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and other relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations. To critics, the Senate’s decision represents not merely a legislative divergence from the House of Representatives, but a retreat from reforms Nigerians had come to expect after the controversies that followed the 2023 general elections.
Dashed Expectations
The amendment process was initially welcomed as an opportunity to fix gaps in the Electoral Act 2022, particularly ambiguities that fuelled post-election litigation and public distrust. Central to these expectations was the push to make real-time electronic transmission of results from polling units to INEC’s Result Viewing (IREV) portal mandatory, thereby removing administrative discretion that critics say has been exploited in the past.
A joint committee of Senate and House of Representatives reportedly reached agreement on this and other reforms, with INEC, political parties, and election observers participating in the process. Civil society groups had described the joint committee’s report as balanced, pragmatic, and responsive to lessons from the 2023 elections. Daily Sun gathered that the apparent consensus made the senate’s eventual reversal deeply unsettling for many stakeholders.
What the Senate Passed
When the senate considered the bill in the Committee of the Whole and passed it for third reading, it adopted several amendments with far-reaching implications for election administration, political party activities, and dispute resolution. They include:
IREV and Electronic Transmission of Results
The most contentious change was the Senate’s rejection of a provision that would have compelled presiding officers to electronically transmit polling unit results to the IREV portal in real time immediately after completion and endorsement of Form EC8A.
The rejected amendment to Section 60 had proposed that:
“The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal in real time and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit.”
Instead, the senate retained the wording of Section 60(5) of the Electoral Act 2022, which provides that:
“The Presiding Officer shall transfer the result, including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”
The retained provision further states:
“A Presiding Officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than ₦500,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months.”
While electronic transmission remains recognised, the law stops short of compelling real-time upload or designating IREV as a legally binding collation platform.
By contrast, the House version of Section 60(3) states:
“The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal in real time and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A have been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling unit agents where available at the polling unit.”
As the process was ongoing, reactions started flowing on social media, condemning the senate’s decision. Addressing the brewing controversy, Senate President Godswill Akpabio rejected claims that the chamber voted against electronic transmission of results. He emphasised that the Red Chamber merely retained what was already provided in the law and did not make any new provisions. He further stressed that whatever decision was taken was not final, as it is subject to concurrence by the House of Representatives.
He stated: “I’m sure some of the provisions that we have elicited today will be different from what our colleagues passed and adjourned last week in the House of Representatives. But social media is already awash with the fact that the senate has rejected electronic transmission. That is not true. That is not true.
“Electronic transmission has always been in our Act. And what we did was to retain the electronic transmission which was used in 2022. So please, do not allow people to confuse you.
“If you are in doubt, we will make our final votes and proceedings available to you if you apply and you are entitled, so that you will see. This senate under my watch has not rejected electronic transmission of results. It’s in my interest as a participant in the next election for such to be done. So, please don’t go with the crowd. So, if we rejected what was proposed by way of amendment and said let’s retain what was in the previous provision, the previous provision had made provision for electronic transmission. So, it is still there as part of our laws. And I think we should be moving forward, not moving backwards. There is no way we can, in this era of electronics, now be going backwards. So, it’s important to note that,” Akpabio added.
Similarly, Senate spokesman, Yemi Adaramodu dismissed the controversy over the phrase “real time,” arguing that the debate was semantic rather than substantive.
“Who determines real time? The issue of determination of real time should not be based on semantics. It is going to be transmitted electronically to the people that are supposed to see it.
“In some places, after voting, the network may not be available, and you may need to travel for one or two hours before you can transmit. So, can you still insist on five minutes? We cannot subject this matter to semantics. What matters is that results reach the electorate electronically for verification.”
When challenged that the provision leaves discretion with INEC, Adaramodu insisted: “Once we have made it mandatory, it is no longer left in their hands.”
Critics, however, argue that the absence of a clear statutory timeline is precisely what undermines transparency.
Reacting, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) condemned the senate’s decision to reject key provisions of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, warning that the move undermines the credibility, transparency, and integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process.
Its spokesman, Bolaji Abdullahi, described the senate’s action as a deliberate attempt to weaken democratic safeguards and prepare the ground for electoral manipulation ahead of future elections.
Other News
“Foremost amongst these is the rejection of electronic transmission of election results, a move that clearly signals yet another attempt by the APC to undermine the will of the Nigerian people and manipulate future elections,” the party stated.
The opposition party also criticised the senate’s decision to vote against other proposed reforms, including provisions that would have allowed electronic download of voter cards from the Independent National Electoral Commission website, reduced the notice period for elections, and shortened the timeline for the publication of candidates from 150 days to 60 days.
According to the ADC, the rejected provisions were designed to strengthen electoral safeguards and restore public confidence in the system.
“Proposed provisions were intended to provide the necessary safeguards against electoral abuse and to restore voter confidence in the electoral process,” the statement read.
“What the senate has done amounts to tampering with the laws to expand opportunities for rigging and foist logistical nightmares on INEC that will make future elections even less efficient,” it added.
On its part, the PDP, through its spokesperson, Ini Ememobong, described the rejection as a clear indication that the National Assembly is not willing or ready to legislate for electoral sanctity and democratic consolidation. ‘’This is indeed a sad day for electoral democracy. We hereby call on the National Assembly to immediately reconsider its stand on this matter and take steps to pass the amendment approving the electronic transmission of results,” he said.
Implications for Post-Election Matters
Beyond politics, the senate’s position reflects a deeper legal reality shaped by Nigeria’s post-2023 election jurisprudence. In several landmark rulings, election tribunals and appellate courts held that electronic upload of results to IREV is not recognised by law as determinative of election outcomes.
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Atiku Abubakar & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2023) ruled that while the Electoral Act 2022 permits electronic transmission of results, it does not make upload to IREV mandatory nor superior to manual collation using Forms EC8A–EC8E. The court held that failure or delay in uploading results to IREV does not amount to substantial non-compliance where results were properly recorded, signed, and collated manually.
The PEPC adopted the same reasoning in Peter Obi & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2023), holding that IREV is essentially a transparency and viewing platform, not a collation centre recognised by law. According to the tribunal, electronic transmission to IREV was never made a condition precedent for the validity of election results.
This interpretation filtered down to governorship, senatorial, and National Assembly election tribunals across states such as Lagos, Ogun, Rivers, and Imo. In many of these cases, petitioners who relied heavily on discrepancies between IREV uploads and physical result sheets were unsuccessful, with tribunals ruling that manually collated results supported by duly signed electoral forms took precedence.
The Court of Appeal later reinforced this position, holding that Section 60 of the Electoral Act 2022 grants INEC discretion in determining the manner of electronic transmission, and that courts cannot elevate administrative tools above express statutory provisions. While this judicial history helps explain the senate’s reluctance to legislate mandatory real-time transmission, reform advocates argue that the amendment process was precisely the opportunity to legislatively close the gaps exposed by the courts.
Compressed Timelines and Administrative Risks
Beyond IREV, the senate approved significant changes to electoral timelines. The notice period for elections was reduced from 360 days to 180 days, while deadlines for party primaries, nominations, and submission of candidates’ lists were cut from 120 and 180 days to 90 days respectively.
Supporters argue that the changes streamline the process and reduce prolonged political tension. Critics warn they could overwhelm political parties, intensify litigation, and strain INEC’s logistics, particularly given Nigeria’s security challenges and difficult terrain. Election analysts caution that shortened timelines may produce administrative chaos rather than efficiency.
Other changes include the formal removal of the Smart Card Reader from the law and replacement with BVAS as the sole voter accreditation device, aligning the Act with current operational practice. However, the Permanent Voter Card remains the only acceptable means of voter identification, rejecting broader technological options.
Electoral Offences and Mandatory Reruns
For electoral offences, including unlawful possession of voter cards and vote-buying, the senate rejected a proposal for a 10-year ban from political activities for offenders, describing it as excessive, and opted instead to increase fines from ₦500,000 to ₦5 million.
One notable reform retained is the requirement for fresh elections where a declared winner is disqualified for fraud or ineligibility. Rather than awarding victory to the runner-up or allowing party substitution, INEC would conduct a rerun excluding the affected candidate and party.
A proposal to allow alternative forms of identification, including electronically generated or downloadable voter cards with QR codes, was also rejected.
How Changes May Affect INEC
INEC has since disclosed that its 2027 election timetable is ready, pending the conclusion of amendments to the Electoral Act. The longer the harmonisation process drags on, the more pressure mounts on the commission to compress planning, voter education, and logistics. The commission is currently unable to release the timetable due to ongoing amendments by the National Assembly.
INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan stressed that the commission had already complied with Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, which empowers it to issue a notice of election not later than 360 days before polling day.
“Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 empowers the Commission to issue a notice of election not later than 360 days before the date of the poll. While the National Assembly is currently working on amendments to the Electoral Act, the Commission has made its submission as required.”
That timeline has now been reduced to 180 days by the senate.
Senate, House, and the Road to Presidential Assent
Significantly, the senate’s version is not final law. House of Representatives passed a different version that explicitly mandates real-time electronic transmission of results.
A harmonisation committee, chaired by Senator Simon Lalong, with members including Adamu Aliero, Adeniyi Adegbonmire, Orji Uzor Kalu, Abba Moro, Asuquo Ekpenyong, Aminu Iya Abbas, and Tokunbo Abiru, has been constituted. For the House, the committee is chaired by Adebayo Balogun, with members including Fred Agbedi, Sada Soli, Ahmadu Jaha, Iduma Igariwey Enwo, Saidu Musa Abdullahi, and Dr. Zainab Gimba. Only after harmonisation can a final bill be transmitted to President Bola Tinubu for assent.
A Test of Democratic Will
With voter apathy rising and confidence in electoral institutions waning, the question confronting the National Assembly is stark: will it deliver a framework that reflects the will of Nigerians for transparent, credible elections, or entrench ambiguity that has repeatedly undermined trust? All eyes are now on the harmonisation process.
