When the Senate passed the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2022 on Wednesday, many Nigerians had hoped it would finally address the loopholes exposed during the 2023 general elections.
Instead, the upper chamber’s decision to reject a key proposal mandating compulsory real-time electronic transmission of election results has triggered widespread public outrage, renewed distrust in the electoral process, and reopened an intense national debate on transparency and accountability.
For many citizens and civil society groups, the amendment process represented a critical opportunity to strengthen Nigeria’s electoral framework by giving clear legal backing to the real-time upload of polling unit results.
That expectation was dashed when senators voted down the clause that would have made electronic transmission compulsory, extinguishing hopes of a more robust accountability mechanism ahead of future elections.
Supporters of the Senate’s action insist that electronic transmission of results remains in the law and that nothing substantive has changed.
Critics, however, argue that something fundamental was lost: the chance to transform electronic transmission from a discretionary option into a binding legal obligation.
For decades, Nigeria’s elections have been dogged by allegations of manipulation, particularly during the collation of results. While voting at polling units is often peaceful, controversies typically arise as results move through multiple collation centres, creating opportunities for interference.
In response, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) introduced technological innovations ahead of the 2023 elections, including the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).
These tools were designed to ensure that once results were counted, signed and stamped at polling units, they would be uploaded online for public viewing, enabling citizens to independently verify outcomes regardless of location.
READ ALSO: Akpabio defends Senate over electoral act amendment, says process not yet concluded
However, because these technologies were not explicitly entrenched in law, their use remained discretionary. That legal gap became a major flashpoint during the 2023 elections, when delays and failures in uploading results fuelled allegations of manipulation and eroded public confidence.
The controversy centres on proposed Clause 60(3) of the amendment bill. The rejected provision stated that presiding officers “shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IReV portal in real time” after Form EC8A—used to record votes at polling units—had been duly signed and stamped.
By clearly linking electronic transmission to IReV and making it mandatory and real-time, the clause sought to convert what had been an optional practice into a legal duty.
Civil society advocates viewed it as a decisive step towards closing the loopholes identified during the last general election.
Instead, the Senate adopted Section 60(5) of the existing Electoral Act 2022, which provides that results shall be transferred “in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”
This formulation leaves the choice of method entirely to INEC, allowing electronic transmission only where the commission deems it practicable. Lawmakers supporting this position have cited challenges such as poor telecommunications coverage in some parts of the country.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio defended the chamber’s decision, insisting that the Senate merely retained the provision already used in the 2023 elections. As criticism mounted, he dismissed claims that the Senate had rejected electronic transmission outright.
“The social media is already awash with reports that the Senate has literally rejected the electronic transmission of results. That is not true,” Akpabio said, adding that electronic transmission remains in the law and that it would be in his own interest as a future electoral participant for such measures to work.
From a strictly legal perspective, Akpabio’s position is accurate. Sections 50(2) and 62(2) of the Electoral Act empower INEC to determine procedures for voting and transmission of results and mandate the commission to maintain a National Electronic Register of Election Results. Nowhere, however, does the Act compel INEC to transmit results electronically in real time.
Civil society organisations that championed the rejected amendment see the Senate’s action as a major setback. Samson Itodo, executive director of Yiaga Africa, described the decision as a betrayal of public trust and an erosion of hard-won electoral reforms.
Itodo argued that the Senate ignored clear judicial guidance. According to him, courts have consistently ruled that electronic transmission is “unknown to the law” precisely because it is not explicitly mandated. This, he said, placed a duty on the National Assembly to close the gap and remove ambiguity.
Judicial pronouncements have played a central role in shaping public expectations. Before the 2023 elections, the Labour Party approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to compel INEC to adopt electronic transmission of results.
The controversy is inseparable from the experience of the 2023 general elections. During the February 25 presidential poll, many polling units failed to upload results promptly, with INEC citing technical glitches.
Opposition parties alleged manipulation, and although the courts upheld the election of President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, many Nigerians felt the system had failed them.
For these critics, the amendment represented a chance to prevent a repeat of that experience in 2027. By refusing to mandate real-time transmission, they argue, the Senate has preserved the same legal weaknesses identified by the courts.