Nigerian elections never end.
But the cycle gets into overdrive roughly one year before a fresh general election.
This is somewhat understandable.
Politicians seeking re-election and those who want to displace them are high on political testosterone.
It’s their season of sowing wild oats, casting nets, hosting conclaves, joining covens, and forging alliances for the good, the bad, the ugly and everything in between.
It’s the period most politicians remember that, far from the capitals where they prefer to stay after elections, the real politics is local.
The Nigerian polity is overheating already as the next election looms.
For the umpteenth time – we’ll return to this in a bit – the Electoral Act is being reviewed, a process in which the public always suspects the National Assembly of bad faith by default.
What we fear
The fear and suspicion cut both ways – fear that the political elite seldom do anything for public benefit or altruistic reasons – and an apprehensive public that demands higher standards without having thought through what is really possible and what might only be an ideal in the circumstances.
On average, Nigeria’s Electoral Act must rank among the most amended legislation passed by the National Assembly.
Ireland has had 38 electoral amendment referendums in 89 years.
Turkey has conducted seven such nationwide referenda since 1923.
Amendments upon amendments
In Nigeria, it has become a regular pre-election ritual: The Electoral Act 2001 was the first comprehensive legal framework passed after the transition to civil rule in 1999.
Since then, the Electoral Act 2002 was enacted to repeal the 2001 version following a Supreme Court ruling on the Federal Government’s powers with respect to state and local government elections.
The Electoral Act 2006, which introduced significant reforms, including establishing a fund for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to increase its financial independence.
Electoral Act 2010: which became the primary law and underwent several specific amendments, including updated timelines for voter registration.
The 2015 (Amendment) Act removed the prohibition on electronic voting, paving the way for technologies like the intelligent card reader.
The 2022 Electoral Act is a significant repeal and re-enactment that legalised the use of electronic devices (like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS) and the electronic transmission of results.
Yet this Act is currently under review.
It’s in its third reading as “The Electoral Act 2022 (Repeal & Enactment) Bill, 2026.
This new bill has been sent to a harmonisation committee to reconcile differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives before presidential assent.
Fires in the streets
As you read this piece, the loudest conversation – including protests – has been the demand for the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act to compel the INEC to transmit election results electronically.
As in 2022, the National Assembly has once again left it to INEC to decide whether to transmit election results mechanically or electronically.
This hybrid recognises the Nigerian reality that real-time network connectivity is still far from ideal, and that technology is not foolproof, offering no guarantee of delivering credible election results.
Deep-seated mistrust of the political elite lies at the heart of public cynicism toward this provision of the Electoral Act. Some have argued, for example, that if Nigeria’s digital financial infrastructure processed about 11.2 billion e-Payment transactions in 2024, achieving a total value of N1.07 quadrillion (about $700 billion), why can’t it process election results involving roughly an average of 26 million people in the last two general elections?
It’s fair to say that processing data volume over one year and managing general elections, where results are expected within hours or days, carry different degrees of risk.
But in Nigeria’s case, the concern is more about trust than technology.
The public believes, for good reasons, that the electoral management body is in the service of the incumbent government and cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
That is the heart of the matter.
What has changed?
Have the two days of protests changed anything? Hardly.
It’s still at INEC’s discretion to use the manual system wherever it decides that electronic transmission failed.
Nothing has fundamentally changed. Transmission of results will be subject to the availability of connectivity and, in some instances, electricity – realities that came to light when the card reader almost denied former President Goodluck Jonathan his right to vote in the 2015 general election.
It is the right of every citizen to demand good, credible elections conducted through accountable processes, with a near-zero possibility of compromise.
Complete real-time systems prioritise cybersecurity and backups, often combining digital uploads with manual verification – capacities INEC is still coming to terms with.
Examples from abroad
The most outstanding global success in the electronic transmission of results is Estonia, a country with fewer than 1.3 million people.
It launched its i-Voting system in 2005 and pioneered secure internet voting with real-time, blockchain-like verification and live public dashboards.
India uses Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), where results are transmitted electronically from counting centres in real time to central servers.
Brazil uses electronic voting machines with real-time digital transmission and public result dashboards.
No African country currently implements nationwide, real-time, complete electronic result transmission.
Botswana, one of Africa’s shining examples in election management, still operates a largely manual, paper-based system with human reporting and tallying of results.
It’s the same in South Africa, where results are counted and verified by the election management body.
Ghana uses biometric verification at polls with electronic collation centres for real-time aggregation, but final transmission relies on physical forms.
Kenya is the leader at this point.
It used the Electronic Results Transmission System (ERTS) to upload polling station results in real time via mobile apps during the 2022 elections, achieving a 90% success rate despite glitches, a far cry from the outcome when INEC tested the IReV portal in Nigeria’s 2023 elections.
Angels in INEC?
Differences in demographics and logistical challenges may have significantly accounted for the different outcomes in Kenya and Nigeria.
Still, more than anything else, if politicians are not ready to play fair, even angels will have a hard time making any system work.
Two days of protests are good, but they will not be enough to hold the politicians and INEC to account this time next year.
Voters, civil society, and the press must continue to exert pressure and maintain vigilance for free and fair elections.
The ingenuity of the amended Bill is that it gives protesters a sense of victory while still retaining its pernicious essence: allowing INEC to determine what to do with election results and how.
With the tools available today, politicians will mostly rig elections in cahoots with INEC if voters turn a blind eye.
The judiciary is increasingly complicit in the mess.
But if voters want an outcome that genuinely reflects their will, then they will have to confront these bastions every step of the way.
Your phone might be your biggest weapon yet!
