At the time, many Nigerians who were exasperated by the exclusion of mandatory transmission of results electronically felt their public demonstrations and online agitations had forced the hands of the sneaky lawmakers to eventually do what they wanted regarding section 60(3) even though it was not a total acquiescence To their demands and full capitulation by the lawmakers, they reckoned the concession they made was a win for the people and democracy.
In February, the national assembly passed the 2026 electoral amendment Bill into law. However, the entire legislative procedure, including the amendment of the bill and its passage into law, was marred by ludicrous antics and troubling shenanigans on the part of lawmakers in both the lower and upper chambers of the national assembly.
Before the passage of the Bill into law in February, one particular aspect drew the attention of the public, one that many Nigerians felt would gravely undermine the credibility of the 2027 elections. It was clause 60(3). This clause focused on the electronic transmission of votes from the polling booths to a dedicated results viewing portal. While members of the Senate and the House of Representatives make much ado about passing laws that will strengthen our electoral process and deepen our democracy, they have paid lip service to important aspects of what are gradually becoming superficial electoral reforms and fall short when it matters most.
Before its passage into law in February, many Nigerians had trooped to the streets to protest the Senate’s refusal to accept real-time transmission of results into law. Instead, they altered clause 60(3) to add conditionalities that create loopholes and wriggle room for those who want to manipulate elections and subvert the people’s will. Seeing that the public pressure and calls for the inclusion of mandatory electronic transmission of results were intensifying, the national assembly backed down and made some concessions by including electronic transmission of election results into the amendments but without making it mandatory. A move that explicitly defeats the essence of what the people were actually yearning for which was mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results.
What the legislative sleight of hand that the national assembly resorted to will do is to create a loophole and wriggle room for those who are bent on manipulating the electoral process to achieve their aims. At the time, many Nigerians who were exasperated by the exclusion of mandatory transmission of results electronically felt their offline protests and online agitations had forced the hand of the sneaky lawmakers to eventually do what they wanted regarding section 60(3) even though it was not a full capitulation by the lawmakers, they reckoned the concession they made was a win for the people. What many Nigerians were not aware of at the time was that section 60(3) was one in a handful of provisions in the electoral amendment Bill which was cleverly inserted and carefully designed to further erode the credibility of the electoral process and weaken a floundering democracy.
In recent days, some of these disturbing provisions and deplorable stipulations that ostensibly pose great risk to free, fair and credible elections have been exposed and with the development has come the shattering of the hope and removal of the illusion of those who still believe the current crop of politicians, especially those in the ruling party, have their interests at heart. These provisions are enshrined in section 63, section 138 and section 137.
Section 63, subsections 1 and 2 of the act allow presiding officers to accept and use ballot papers that do not bear INEC’s official marks or security features provided they are “satisfied” with their authenticity. Section 138, which deals with grounds for filing election petitions. The provision suggests that actions or omissions contrary to INEC directives—but not explicitly against the Electoral Act—cannot be used as grounds to challenge election results. Section 137, removes the requirement to join electoral officers—such as presiding or returning officers—as respondents in election petitions involving allegations of misconduct.
These provisions portend danger for our democracy. A former Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Mike Igini, has weighed in on the matter.
According to Igini, he argued that section 63 introduces subjective discretion that could be exploited. He pointed out that the use of the word “satisfied” brings back a contentious clause previously contained in the 2010 Electoral Act, which was later removed after years of criticism. Section 138 warned that allowing electoral officers to accept ballot papers that do not bear the marks of INEC stamps could enable the use of unauthorised ballot papers during elections. For section 137, he argued that the provision effectively shields electoral officers who fail to comply with INEC guidelines, noting that such directives are typically contained in the commission’s regulations. He noted that the provision could make it difficult to hold individual officials accountable for alleged irregularities during elections..
He said: “Section 63, which I just discovered, has reintroduced something very terrible. You can see that the ballot paper that will be used for the 2027 election does not bear the official marks and features, and the security features of INEC should be accepted by the presiding officer. The Presiding Officer has now been given a discretion to accept a ballot paper, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, and to count that ballot paper.”
This is going to have a catastrophic effect on how we conduct elections and by extension the stability of our democracy as the section now grants sweeping powers to unscrupulous and power-hungry politicians to produce their ballot.
” What that means is that before this election, politicians who now have access to the security features of the INEC ballot are going to produce their ballot papers. They are going to print their own ballot paper to be accepted. This is dangerous and they put it in the Electoral Act,” Igini added
For section 138, Igini disclosed that it is one of the section that there have immense agitations for its removal from the electoral act.
The section reads: “An act or omission which will be contrary to the instruction or directive of the commission, or of an officer appointed for election, but which is not contrary to the provision of this Act shall not, of itself be a ground for questioning the election.”
What this section does is to give a presiding officer, a collation officer, or a returning officer who willfully disregarded or intentionally violates INEC directive, guidelines or regulation, immunity.
Igini noted that “When you want to deceive people, you put it in words and bring that section back again. They were just short of referring to INEC regulations and guidelines, because the instructions and directives of INEC are contained in INEC regulations and guidelines.”
Section 137 is an extension of the disturbing provision of section 138. If section 137 gives INEC officers the power to act as they please and in contravention of the electoral body’s established laws, section 137 provides the cover for them to get away with it. It shields the INEC officials whose actions and behaviour violate the commission’s directive or regulation from prosecution or being joined as respondents in petitions filed by candidates who were dissatisfied with the conduct of an election.
The section reads “Where the petition, that is where anybody now wants to file a petition, complaints of the conduct of an Electoral Officer, a presiding officer, returning officer, it shall not be necessary to join such an officer”
“It will interest Nigerians to know that section 137 now says that all those categories of individuals, the Presiding Officer and the Returning officers, who have disobeyed the INEC instruction and guideline, that it shall not be necessary to bring them to the court, You are now saying that the people who rig elections, presiding officers, who actually were the makers of the document, you said, because you have joined INEC as a respondent, it shall not be necessary to bring them to the tribunal,” Igini explained
These provisions are an egregious impediment to having free, transparent and credible. They are anathema to the tenets and ideals of what a real democracy is and should be. It must be said that no credible elections can be conducted with these dangerous and sinister provisions that have been deftly enshrined in the controversial electoral act. What these provisions will do is to lay the groundwork for the destruction of our democracy and the rise of anarchy. When people no longer feel they can change the people who lead them through peaceful and credible elections, they resort to self-help and take the law into their own hands. This will undoubtedly and inevitably plunge the country into turmoil, social upheaval and political instability.
Furthermore, the pertinent questions to ask her are what the opposition is doing to check this aberration. The fact that it took a former INEC commissioner and fierce proponent of a fair, open and transparent electoral process to point out these troubling provisions shows how embarrassingly lukewarm and ineffective the opposition is. How they did not get a group of experts to comb through the electoral amendment bill and spot these treacherous provisions before the bill was passed into law speaks to their disappointing level of preparation to oust the current government via democratic means.
Ordinarily, the next move will be to push for the amendment of these sections and remove the provisions and stipulations that glaringly erode the credibility of future elections but this is not likely to happen because the people who will not serve the interest of those who initially included these sections in the passed bill.
