Electoral Law Faces Defining Test as N’Assembly Resumes Plenary Today

As the National Assembly resumes plenary today, January 27, 2026, a dangerous clock is ticking at the Red Chamber. This is because despite passage by the House of Representatives, amendments to the Electoral Act remain stalled at the Senate. With constitutional deadlines looming, delay now threatens to force Nigeria into the 2027 polls under a flawed legal framework. Sunday Aborisade reports.

When the 10th Senate resumes plenary on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, the mood in the Red Chamber will be sombre but the stakes could hardly be higher. In line with parliamentary tradition, senators will first adjourn sitting in honour of the late Senator Godiya Akwashiki, who passed away after a prolonged illness in an Indian hospital, before reconvening the following day. Yet beyond the ceremonial pause lies a more consequential hiatus, which is one that has already begun to cast a long shadow over Nigeria’s democratic future.

More than any other legislative delay, the Senate’s failure so far to pass the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025, despite its passage by the House of Representatives, has become the most troubling implication of the recess.

With the 2027 general elections less than 13 months away, the constitutional clock is ticking relentlessly. Under Nigeria’s electoral legal framework, no amendment to the Electoral Act can take effect unless it is passed and assented to at least 360 days before a general election.

That deadline effectively falls in February 2026. Should the Senate fail to conclude action on the bill within weeks, the proposed reforms, hailed as critical to restoring public confidence in elections, will automatically lapse.

In practical terms, that would mean Nigeria heading into another election cycle under the same 2022 Electoral Act whose gaps and ambiguities were laid bare during the 2023 polls.

The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed at third reading by the House of Representatives in December 2025, after months of debate and stakeholders’ engagement.

The Senate, on its part, passed the bill at second reading but stepped it down for further consultations before recess, leaving its final consideration hanging in the balance.

This delay has fuelled anxiety among civil society groups, election observers and even lawmakers themselves. Deputy Speaker of the House and other ranking legislators have repeatedly emphasised the urgency of consolidating electoral reforms ahead of 2027, warning that legislative foot-dragging could undermine years of incremental progress in Nigeria’s electoral system.

Ironically, Senate leadership has publicly expressed commitment to completing the process in good time. But commitment without speed, critics argue, may no longer be enough.

The pending amendments go far beyond cosmetic changes. At their core, they seek to fundamentally recalibrate how elections are conducted, disputed and concluded in Nigeria.

One of the most far-reaching proposals is election calendar reform. Under the draft amendment, presidential and governorship elections would be moved from the traditional February–March window to November 2026, roughly 185 days before the end of the current administration in May 2027.

The intention is clear: to ensure that all election petitions and appeals are concluded before inauguration day, eliminating the perennial contradiction of officeholders governing while their mandates are still being contested in court.

However, strong indications have emerged that the idea had been jettisoned since it was not contained in the version passed by the House of Representatives.

Another controversial proposal concerns the Permanent Voter Card (PVC).

Lawmakers are considering making the PVC optional, given that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) does not actually read the PVC’s microchip.

Alternatives under consideration include the use of National Identification Numbers (NIN), international passports, or downloadable and printable voter cards. While supporters argue this would expand access and reduce logistical bottlenecks, critics fear it could open new avenues for abuse if not carefully regulated.

Perhaps the most widely supported reform is the push for mandatory electronic transmission of results. The bill proposes that results be transmitted electronically from polling units alongside manual collation, backed by stiffer penalties for electoral officers who distribute unstamped or unsigned ballot papers and result sheets.

This is designed to address one of the biggest credibility gaps of past elections: the divergence between polling-unit results and figures declared at collation centres.

The amendments also introduce early voting, up to 14 days before election day, for security personnel, INEC officials, accredited observers, journalists and other election workers. If passed, this would mark a historic shift, recognising the realities of election-day deployment and reducing disenfranchisement among those tasked with safeguarding the process.

Other provisions seek to strengthen INEC’s oversight of party primaries, compel political parties to publish delegates’ lists, and mandate earlier submission of candidate lists, at least 210 days before election day.

There are also proposals to compress campaign durations to curb excessive spending and political tension, although details remain under negotiation.

Crucially, the bill aims to fast-track election litigation so that all disputes are resolved before May 29, 2027. This would require tighter tribunal and appellate timelines, an ambition that hinges as much on judicial capacity as on legislative drafting.

Beyond the Electoral Act itself, the National Assembly is also weighing constitutional amendments that would move election timelines out of the Constitution and into the Electoral Act.

Proponents argue this would provide greater flexibility for future reforms without the arduous process of constitutional alteration. Opponents counter that such a move could weaken constitutional safeguards around elections.

These proposals are embedded within the broader constitution review exercise, another major item awaiting Senate attention on resumption. Committees have already held public hearings, and reports are expected to return to plenary in 2026.

Any successful alteration will still require approval by at least two-thirds of state Houses of Assembly, adding another layer of complexity and time pressure.

While electoral reform dominates public concern, it is not the only pressing item on the Senate’s agenda. The 2026 Appropriation Bill, estimated at ₦58.47 trillion, has passed second reading and awaits detailed committee consideration and final passage.

As the fiscal year begins, lawmakers will also scrutinise the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Fiscal Strategy Paper for 2026–2028, documents that set the tone for government spending amid economic uncertainty.

Meanwhile, controversy over the alleged doctoring of recently passed tax laws has deepened, placing the Senate and the National Assembly under pressure to resolve discrepancies between versions approved by lawmakers and those gazetted by the executive, when legislative activities resume today.

At the centre of the dispute are claims that key provisions of the tax legislation were altered after passage by both chambers of the federal parliament.

An Ad hoc committee set up by the House of Representatives Minority Caucus to probe the allegations has affirmed that the claims raised by a lawmaker, Abdusamad Dasuki, were valid.

The seven-member fact-finding committee, chaired by Hon. Afam Ogene, disclosed in a preliminary report that some sections of the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, were altered after being passed by the National Assembly.

According to the committee, its investigation uncovered the existence of three different versions of the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, currently in circulation.

It said the contentious provisions showed clear discrepancies between the version passed by the legislature and the one published in the official gazette, a position it said was further supported by Certified True Copies issued by the House of Representatives.

However, the House leadership has formally rejected the interim report, describing the Minority Caucus committee as procedurally invalid.

In a statement by its spokesman, Hon Akintunde Rotimi, the House insisted that only the Speaker or the plenary has the constitutional authority to constitute committees, stressing that caucus-led inquiries are informal, non-binding and capable of misleading the public on sensitive legislative matters.

The leadership also noted that a duly constituted bipartisan ad hoc committee set up in December 2025 remains in place to investigate the matter.

The Minority Caucus has dismissed the House leadership’s position, warning that rejecting the interim report could encourage impunity and weaken legislative integrity.

Ogene maintained that the report did not indict the National Assembly but pointed to alleged attempts by external actors within the bureaucracy to tamper with laws after passage, urging lawmakers to prioritise accountability in order to protect democratic institutions.

National security is another unavoidable priority. Plans for a National Security Summit in Abuja in the first quarter of 2026 remain on the table, alongside routine oversight of security agencies battling insurgency, banditry and other forms of violent crime across the country.

The Senate is also expected to screen and confirm executive nominees appointed during the recess, including heads of boards and agencies, an obligation that often competes for floor time with substantive legislation.

The implication of failing to pass the Electoral Act amendments in time is stark. Without them, the 2027 polls will be conducted under a legal regime widely acknowledged to be imperfect, one that struggled to fully accommodate technological innovation, resolve disputes promptly, and inspire public trust in 2023.

More damaging still would be the signal such failure sends: that political consensus on electoral reform remains fragile, and that institutional inertia can still trump democratic urgency.

As the Senate resumes work, therefore, the question is not whether it has enough items on its agenda, but whether it has the political will and procedural discipline to prioritise the one that underpins others. Budgets, confirmations and oversight matter, but elections determine who wields the authority to pursue them.

In the final analysis, the resumption of plenary by the 10th Senate today offers a narrowing window to redeem legislative promises on electoral reform. Whether that opportunity is seized, or allowed to slip by, may well define not just the credibility of the next elections, but the legacy of the Senate itself.