With each election cycle, Nigeria revisits the same themes: transparency, trust, and the processes of vote counting. Nigerians make changes to laws, engage in debates, pursue legal action, and then revise once more. This ongoing cycle has gradually come to characterise Nigeria’s democratic evolution. The current movement towards establishing mandatory real-time electronic results transmission before 2027 is merely the latest instalment in that familiar narrative.
The impetus for this movement did not arise without context. The 2023 general election revealed a significant legal shortcoming. INEC launched the IReV portal, allowing citizens nationwide to monitor results as they were posted, polling unit by polling unit. Consequently, expectations grew. Yet, when election-related conflicts reached the judiciary, the Supreme Court established a clear boundary.
It ruled that electronic transmission was not specifically required by the Electoral Act 2022 and was only referenced in INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines. Consequently, IReV was deemed to lack any binding legal authority. It was characterised as a viewing platform rather than conclusive evidence in electoral disputes. The takeaway was clear: despite its good intentions, innovation cannot supersede established law.
This ruling gave rise to a strong argument: incorporating mandatory real-time electronic transmission into the Electoral Act could potentially end Nigeria’s ongoing cycle of post-election legal battles. The frustration behind this perspective is quite understandable.
Even so, by the time the courts arrive at a decision, most of the four-year term will have already passed, rendering any victory mostly symbolic. Since 1999, no petitions regarding presidential elections have been successful. The overwhelming challenge of validating results from over 176,000 polling stations within the required constitutional timeframes highlights one of the system’s most significant flaws.
News: Bye-Election: Ahoada East Poll Ends Peacefully Amid Low Turnout
However, history shows us that the integrity of elections hasn’t always relied on complex technologies. The June 12, 1993, election is held in high regard, not due to advanced tools, but because of its clear transparency. There were no intricate digital systems or concealed methods. Individuals stood in the sun, observing the counting of their votes.
Option A4 was effective because it was straightforward, transparent, and immediate. Results were promptly announced at the polling stations, clearly visible to voters, party representatives, and observers. There were no remote servers, no hidden backend systems, and no unstable networks that could fail. Trust was not simply asked for; it was built through transparency. From this contrast between simplicity and complexity, the first significant issue arises.
Electronic transmission does not equate to obligatory, real-time, nationwide electronic transmission. This difference is not merely a matter of semantics; it holds legal, technical, and operational implications. Electronic transmission indicates that results can be sent via electronic methods. This principle is already recognised in both legislation and practice.
The Electoral Act grants INEC the authority to transmit results electronically when and where it is feasible. This allowance is frequently misconstrued as a loophole, but in truth, it acts as a safeguard. However, real-time transmission carries much more significant consequences. It presumes that every polling unit must send results immediately without any delays, irrespective of network reliability, security conditions, or environmental factors.
Making this presumption a strict legal requirement risks creating a system that is inherently fragile. In areas where connectivity is poor or non-existent, results cannot be promptly transmitted; they can only be sent once the network stabilises.
If the law mandates real-time transmission without clear exceptions, INEC could inadvertently find itself in violation without any fault of its own. Courts, as past experiences indicate, tend to be unsympathetic to justifications based on infrastructure issues; they tend to interpret the law as it is explicitly stated.
