The Senate has largely retracted its earlier rejection of electronic transmission of election results following weeks of popular outcry and persistent civic pressure. The Electoral Act was changed by senators on Tuesday to allow results to be electronically transmitted from polling places to the Result Viewing Portal (IREV) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Many Nigerians had called for comprehensive reform, but the concession came with a number of requirements that fell far short of that.
Despite being accepted into Nigeria’s election system, electronic transmission is still welcomed but strictly monitored.
Election results may be sent online following vote counting under the amended clause. A crucial disclaimer was added by parliamentarians, though: the physical result sheet (Form EC8A) will be the main source of information in the event that network or internet connectivity fails. Instead of fully adopting electoral openness, the Senate has chosen a careful, politically planned compromise by refusing to mandate electronic transmission and keeping manual collation as a backup.
A proposal by Senate Chief Whip Senator Tahir Monguno (APC, Borno North) led to an extraordinary plenary session and the amendment. In order to better connect the Electoral Act with changing technological realities and public expectations, he contended that the chamber ought to review its previous position. Proponents praised the action as striking a practical balance between idealism and reality. But more concerning to critics is a reform that has been weakened just enough to maintain historical vulnerabilities.
In fact, there had been a strong popular response against the Senate’s first rejection of mandatory electronic transmission. The decision runs the possibility of reopening well-known avenues for manipulating results, according to pro-democracy organizations, media professional associations, and civil society organizations, including the Nigerian Guild of Editors. Many Nigerians view technology as a way to prevent tampering at the most vulnerable stage of the electoral process—between polling places and collation centers—rather than as a luxury.
It seems more of a surrender than a conversion, then, that the Senate reversed its decision. On the political front, it shows a legislature trying to strike a compromise between the growing public desire for genuine elections and the apprehension of long-standing political interests. Political power and human discretion are both curtailed by electronic transmission. A lot of people in the political elite find that lack of discretion to be unpleasant.
Even though the amendment’s changes are significant, what it keeps might be even more significant. A procedure that has long been linked to controversy, disagreements, and accusations of manipulation is preserved by the law by specifically permitting manual collation to take precedence in situations of “network failure.”
There is enough ambiguity created by the “network failure” provision to engulf the reform itself in a nation where technological malfunctions and logistical difficulties are frequently mentioned. When discretion flourishes, disagreements frequently ensue.
Uneven infrastructure realities exist in Nigeria, as any sane observer would agree. The clause gives INEC operational freedom from an administrative perspective, especially in remote or underdeveloped areas where requiring electronic transmission would not be feasible. The electoral authority is protected from charges of non-compliance in cases when there are real technical difficulties.
Politically, however, this adaptability is reciprocal. In order to explain why electronic transmission was feasible in some polling places but not in others, INEC would now have to provide evidence.
Genuine or professed, selective application has the potential to erode public trust, increase suspicion, and open up new legal issues after the election. Instead of making elections easier, the amendment might make them more difficult.
The Senate has, more importantly, maintained the very discretion that reformers aimed to limit by making electronic transmission voluntary rather than required. In elections that are hotly contested, with narrow margins and high stakes, disagreements at the polling station are uncommon. They appear when they collide, which is exactly the stage that electronic transmission was intended to protect.
The amendment serves as a conduit for political pressure in this way. In the electoral process, it reduces popular ire without radically changing the balance of power. According to analysts, it is an effort to control conflict instead of addressing the more serious issue of electoral credibility. This skepticism is reinforced by Nigeria’s reform history, which regularly presents electoral reforms as advancements while covertly maintaining the status quo.
However, the amendment has some importance. For the first time, there is clear legal recognition of results transmitted electronically. It is important. The establishment of legal recognition lays the groundwork for upcoming improvements. The claim that electronic transmission is unlawful or irrelevant to Nigeria’s electoral system is refuted.
However, recognition alone does not equate to transformation. Its impact will be more dependent on political will, which is frequently the most unpredictable factor in Nigerian elections, than on statutory authority as long as electronic transmission is still optional. The consistency with which INEC implements the change, the openness with which it explains deviations, and the degree to which it withstands political pressure will all establish its credibility.
The ramifications for the law are equally important. Election law ambiguity frequently reaches the courts directly rather than ending at the polling station. Together with the “network failure” allowance, the amendment’s non-mandatory wording is probably going to be a major argument in election petitions. Tribunals may be required to rule on whether reliance on manual collation was warranted, if failure to transmit harmed results, and whether electronic transmission was reasonably achievable in particular places.
The proposal could increase post-election disputes rather than decrease them. However, there is also hope in the Senate’s reversal: the growing power of popular pressure in Nigeria’s democratic arena. Lawmakers were compelled to reevaluate an unpopular choice due to public indignation, protests, and persistent campaigning. By itself, that is a democratic advantage.
The issue is that while actual change is sometimes delayed, piecemeal reform frequently gives the appearance of progress. The senators’ solution may have reduced political tensions without resolving the fundamental lack of confidence in the democratic process. The issue is nonetheless familiar and legitimate to reformers: half-measures won’t save Nigeria’s elections.
The amendment is, in the end, a step forward, but it is one that is measured in inches rather than strides. It shows how the political system is having difficulty balancing the desires of the populace for openness with the elites’ concerns about losing power.
The operationalization of the provision by INEC, the interpretation of its ambiguities by judges, and the persistence of public pressure will determine whether electronic transmission turns into a step toward truly legitimate elections or just a convenient compromise.
In Nigeria’s electoral architecture, electronic transmission is currently allowed, but only as a guest and not as a norm. Additionally, the crisis of credibility it was intended to address will not be resolved until it is made a regulation.
