The Senate has approved the electronic transmission of election results to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Result Viewing Portal (IReV), while retaining manual collation as a fallback option in situations where technology fails. The decision followed a reconsideration of a controversial provision in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill during an emergency plenary session held on Tuesday.
The revised position marks a partial shift from an earlier Senate resolution that had generated widespread criticism from civil society groups, opposition parties, and election observers. While the upper chamber endorsed electronic transmission in principle, it stopped short of making the process mandatory and also rejected proposals that would have required real-time upload of results from polling units.
Under the amended provision, presiding officers at polling units are required to electronically transmit election results to the IReV portal after voting has concluded and all necessary documentation has been completed. This includes the signing and stamping of the prescribed result sheet, Form EC8A, by the presiding officer, as well as countersigning by party agents where available.
However, the Senate introduced a proviso that allows for manual collation of results where electronic transmission proves impossible due to communication or network challenges. In such circumstances, the manually completed Form EC8A will serve as the primary basis for the collation and declaration of results.
The reconsideration of the disputed clause took place amid intense public pressure and criticism following the Senate’s earlier decision to retain the discretionary wording of Section 60, Subsection 3 of the Electoral Act. Critics had argued that the original provision weakened the legal framework for transparent elections by leaving the mode of result transmission largely at the discretion of INEC.
Presiding over the emergency plenary, Senate President Godswill Akpabio explained that the motion before the chamber sought to reverse the Senate’s earlier position on the contentious section of the bill. He urged senators who disagreed with the amendment to formally challenge it through a counter motion rather than relying on informal objections.
“It’s very simple. If you disagree with him, move your counter motion. So, if you agree with him, you agree with me when I put the votes,” Akpabio said while putting the motion to a voice vote.
He clarified that the reconsideration was specifically aimed at rescinding the Senate’s previous decision on Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act and replacing it with a revised formulation that accommodates both electronic and manual processes.
“When I ask for the votes, when I ask for your consent, let me read the motion. His earlier motion, which passed in our last sitting, he has sought to rescind that. That is in respect of Section 60, Subsection 3,” Akpabio explained.
Reading out the amended clause, the Senate President stated: “That the presiding officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IReV portal. 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 units, because sometimes you don’t see any polling agent.”
Akpabio further explained that the amendment was designed to address practical realities, particularly in areas where technological infrastructure remains weak or unreliable.
“Provided that if the electronic transmission of the results fails as a result of communication failure — in other words, maybe network or otherwise — and it becomes impossible to transmit the results electronically in Form EC8A signed and stamped by the presiding officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling units, the Form EC8A shall in such a case be the primary source of collation and declaration of results,” he added.
The Senate’s decision reflects an attempt to strike a balance between technological innovation and logistical constraints in Nigeria’s electoral process. Proponents of the amendment argue that while electronic transmission enhances transparency, it would be impractical and potentially disruptive to insist on it in areas without reliable network coverage.
However, the revised clause has continued to draw criticism from civil society organisations, election observers, and opposition figures, many of whom insist that allowing manual results to override electronically transmitted ones undermines the very purpose of adopting technology in elections.
Several groups argue that the fallback provision could create loopholes for manipulation, particularly in remote or politically sensitive areas where network challenges are often cited during elections. They contend that without making electronic transmission compulsory and prioritising electronically uploaded results over manual ones, the amendment risks entrenching the same disputes and controversies that have plagued previous elections.
Opposition figures have also expressed concern that the rejection of real-time transmission weakens public confidence in the process. Real-time upload, they argue, would minimise opportunities for result tampering between polling units and collation centres, a stage historically associated with allegations of manipulation.
The debate over electronic transmission has been one of the most contentious aspects of Nigeria’s ongoing electoral reform process. During the 2023 general elections, INEC’s failure to consistently upload results in real time to the IReV portal triggered widespread outrage, legal challenges, and accusations of bad faith, despite assurances from the commission that technical glitches were responsible.
Supporters of mandatory electronic transmission insist that clear statutory backing is necessary to compel compliance and prevent discretionary implementation. They also argue that claims about poor network coverage are increasingly untenable in an era where banks, telecommunications companies, and other critical institutions operate digital systems nationwide.
Nevertheless, lawmakers backing the Senate’s revised position maintain that the amendment recognises Nigeria’s uneven infrastructure and seeks to avoid disenfranchising voters in areas where electronic transmission may be temporarily impossible.
With the Senate’s approval, attention now shifts to the harmonisation of the bill with the House of Representatives’ version and eventual assent by the President. The outcome will determine whether the revised provisions become law ahead of future elections.
As the debate continues, the amendment has underscored the deep mistrust surrounding Nigeria’s electoral system and the high stakes attached to any reform of the process. For many observers, the effectiveness of electronic transmission will ultimately depend not only on the wording of the law but also on the political will to implement it faithfully.
Whether the Senate’s compromise will strengthen electoral credibility or perpetuate existing vulnerabilities remains a subject of intense public scrutiny as Nigeria prepares for future polls.
