The recent rejection of real-time transmission of election results by Nigeria’s Senate has stirred public debate and disappointment. Many had hoped that the amendment to the Electoral Act would make the electronic transmission of results mandatory, especially following criticisms of the 2023 election’s transparency.
However, the Senate’s decision has left the law as it stands, with electronic transmission remaining optional and at the discretion of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This decision has led to concerns about the future of Nigeria’s electoral system, particularly ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Why electronic transmission of results is so important
Over the years, allegations of result manipulation have plagued Nigerian elections elections. While voting at polling units is often peaceful, disputes arise when results are moved to collation centers, where human interference is more likely.
To address this, INEC introduced technological solutions like the Biometric Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV). These tools allow results to be uploaded from polling units directly to the IReV, making the process more transparent and accessible to the public.
However, the use of these tools was not explicitly mandated by law in the past, and it remained up to INEC to decide whether or not to use them. This created a loophole that critics argue undermines the credibility of the electoral system.
What did the senate reject?
The controversy centers around a proposal in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, specifically Clause 60(3). This clause would have made real-time electronic transmission of election results compulsory, requiring results to be uploaded immediately after they were signed off by the presiding officer at the polling unit. The proposal was meant to ensure that the results were made public in real-time, closing any gaps that could be exploited for manipulation.
Instead, the Senate opted for Section 60(5) of the existing Electoral Act, which allows INEC to choose how to transmit the results. This gives INEC the flexibility to choose whether to use electronic transmission based on factors such as the availability of telecommunication networks in remote areas. Critics argue that this decision effectively maintains the status quo, leaving room for potential abuses.
The senate’s defense
Senate President Godswill Akpabio has defended the Senate’s decision, asserting that the rejection of the proposal does not mean that electronic transmission has been entirely ruled out. According to him, the law still allows INEC to use electronic transmission if it deems it necessary. Legally, Akpabio’s statement is correct, as Section 50(2) of the Electoral Act allows INEC to determine the procedure for transmitting results.
However, the concern among critics is that the lack of a clear mandate makes it less likely that the process will be consistently applied in every election.
Why civil society groups are displeased
Civil society groups, which have campaigned for a mandatory electronic transmission system, have expressed disappointment with the Senate’s decision. Samson Itodo, the executive director of Yiaga Africa, criticised the Senate for what he termed a betrayal of Nigerians’ trust.
According to Itodo, the Senate ignored judicial guidance on the matter. Courts have previously ruled that electronic transmission was “unknown to the law” because it was not explicitly mentioned. As a result, the National Assembly had a duty to fix this gap. By rejecting the mandatory transmission clause, critics believe the Senate has failed to address the weaknesses that have been exposed in previous elections.
The courts’ role in this debate
The legal battle over electronic transmission started before the 2023 elections, when the Labour Party (LP) sought to compel INEC to adopt electronic transmission methods.
The Federal High Court ruled that INEC had the discretion to choose how results were transmitted. The ruling emphasised that the law did not mandate the use of electronic transmission.
After the 2023 election, the Supreme Court clarified that IReV was not a collation system and that its failure would not invalidate election results. The court also reaffirmed that INEC had the authority to choose the transmission method.
These rulings have shaped the legal landscape, with critics arguing that the Senate’s rejection of real-time transmission simply perpetuates the existing legal gaps.
DON’T MISS THIS: Khaby Lame – The man who conquered the internet with silence
What does this mean for the 2027 elections?
The Senate’s decision is a blow to many who hoped for a more transparent and accountable electoral system. Critics argue that the failure to make real-time transmission mandatory leaves the electoral process vulnerable to manipulation.
The events surrounding the 2023 elections, where many polling units failed to upload results in real-time, only fueled public distrust in the system. Despite INEC’s explanations that technical glitches were to blame, opposition parties raised concerns of foul play.
With the 2027 elections on the horizon, this amendment was seen as an opportunity to fix these issues. The Senate’s decision, however, raises doubts about whether such reforms will be implemented, leaving many Nigerians questioning the integrity of future elections.
A path forward
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed different versions of the amendment, with the House supporting mandatory real-time transmission. A conference committee has been formed to reconcile the differences between the two chambers. The final decision will depend on which version the committee adopts. If the House’s version prevails, it could pave the way for a more robust electoral process.
However, if the Senate’s position is upheld, the law will remain as it is, and the discretion of INEC in the transmission of election results will continue. For now, Nigerians are left waiting to see whether their representatives will prioritise transparency or maintain the status quo.
