Non-Passage of Electoral Bill: Consequences on the 2027 Elections

For months, the National Assembly has been embroiled in bickering and palpable tension, over the passage of the Electoral Act 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill 2025. Many looked forward to the swift passage of the crucial Bill, because of its potential to rectify most of the imperfections in the old Electoral law, including the central issue of electronic transmission of results from polling units to the IREV portal in real time. Is there any hope that Nigerians will enjoy the benefit of this innovation, seeing as National Assembly members appear to be at loggerheads over this matter, and indeed, other aspects of the Bill?. Former INEC National Commissioner, Festus Okoye; Kunle Edun, SAN; Samson Itodo and Sylvester Udemezue scrutinise the issues around this law, and why Lawmakers seem to be  challenged with its swift passage

Controversies Surrounding the Electoral Act, 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill 2025

Festus Okoye

What are the Issues?

The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, passed its own version of the Electoral Act 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill 2025. Some amendments made, and provisions dropped, have raised significant concerns among Nigerians about the integrity of the 2027 elections, and their trust in the electoral process. While these are genuine concerns and reflect Nigerians’ desire for credible elections, it is important to understand the impact of provisions that have been passed or rejected on election credibility. It is also important to emphasise that timelines should not be viewed in isolation; they must be considered as a whole.

Furthermore, an electoral management body cannot plan effectively under conditions of uncertainty. Although the Electoral Act 2022, is the current law, it would be futile for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to pretend otherwise or to ignore the possibility that a new law might replace the existing one. The conclusion of amendments to the electoral legal framework for elections, is a fundamental principle of the democratic process. Delays in passing the electoral legal framework, may disrupt the electoral process.

Timelines in the Electoral Bill

Adherence to and fidelity to timeliness, are essential for the electoral process. Some timelines in the Constitution and the Electoral Act are as inflexible as the Rock of Gibraltar, especially when these deadlines are enshrined in the Constitution itself. Timelines help reduce planning uncertainty and provide the electoral management body, political parties, voters, and the public with an indication of when key events will occur, enabling them to prepare. Timelines must be well-structured, properly ordered, and reliable, as one timeline connects to another; any incorrect sequencing can lead to legal challenges and disrupt the electoral process.

The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria failed to adhere to these basic principles, when it passed the Electoral Act, 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill 2025. This has resulted in challenges, and it is hoped that the Conference Committee of the National Assembly will address the discrepancies, before submitting the Bill to the President for assent.

Firstly, the Senate shortened the deadline for submitting the list of nominated candidates from 180 days to 90 days without recognising that organising primaries and verifying valid nominations are substantial tasks. The Commission must monitor the conduct of primaries, and the primaries must pass the test of validity. After the conduct of primaries, the parties must submit the list of validly nominated candidates to the Commission. The parties will field candidates, and submit their names and particulars to the Commission.

Subsequently, the Commission has 21 days to publish the list of nominated candidates for their respective constituencies. After publication, candidates have 14 days to raise objections, and correct errors in the particulars published by the Commission. 21 days plus 14 days, totals 35 days. This leaves us with 55 days until the election.

Unfortunately, Section 31 of the Bill allows for the withdrawal of candidates after nomination. It states that a candidate may withdraw his candidature by written notice signed by him, along with a sworn affidavit submitted personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election, and the political party must convey such withdrawal and the sworn affidavit to the Commission, no later than 90 days before the election.

The 90-day withdrawal period had already started, before the Commission published the list of nominated candidates. This is a significant legal flaw. It should not happen, and the National Assembly must address it before it turns into a serious problem.

Essentially, the timelines in the Bill render the Constitution’s timelines for resolving electoral disputes ineffective. The consequence is that, all pre-election matters will be dealt with by the Federal High Court after the elections have taken place.

Section 285(9) of the Constitution states that all pre-election matters must be filed within 14 days of the event, decision, or action in question. Subsection 10 specifies that the Court, in every pre-election matter, shall deliver its judgement in writing within 180 days from the date of filing the suit.

An appeal against a decision in a pre-election matter, must be lodged within 14 days of the delivery of the judgement being appealed. Meanwhile, an appeal from a Court’s decision in a pre-election matter, shall be heard and decided within 60 days of the date of filing the appeal.

Section 285(14) defines pre-election matters to include an aspirant who complains that any provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of party primaries, as well as the guidelines of a political party for conducting party primaries, have not been followed by a political party in relation to the selection or nomination of candidates for an election; an aspirant challenging the actions, decisions, or activities of INEC regarding their participation in an election, or complaining that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other Act of the National Assembly regulating elections in Nigeria have not been adhered to by the Commission concerning the selection or nomination of candidates and participation in an election; and a political party contesting the actions, decisions, or activities of INEC that disqualify its candidate from participating in an election, or complaining that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law have not been complied with by the Commission regarding the nomination of political party candidates, the election timetable, voter registration, and other activities related to the preparation for an election.

The implication is that no pre-election matters will be resolved before the election, which undermines the push for the inclusion of timelines in the Constitution.

It is crucial for the National Assembly, to align the timelines in the Electoral Act and the Constitution. A conflict between the two, could lead to a legal and constitutional crisis. The electoral management body, political parties, and civil society groups must trust the law and operate within its boundaries and framework.

Mandatory Electronic Result Transmission

The provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the repealed section of the Electoral Act 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill, 2025, do not significantly improve the electoral process. Instead, the fuss about the deleted or removed provision will only complicate the electoral process, mislead Nigerians about the Bill’s true aim, and reflect poorly on the country’s ability to learn from history, precedent, or past mistakes.

The Senate rejected the new provision, which states that the Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal in real time, and such transmission shall be completed 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 unit.

This does not improve the existing section of the Electoral Act 2022, which states that the presiding officer shall transfer the results, including the total number of accredited voters and the ballot results, in a manner prescribed by the Commission.

In Oyetola v INEC (2023) 11 NWLR, Part 1894, the Supreme Court clarified that, as their names suggest, the Collation System and the INEC Result Viewing Portal are integral parts of the election process and have specific roles. The Collation System includes Centres where results are collected, at various stages of the election. Polling unit results transmitted to the collation system, enable the relevant collation officer to verify a polling unit result when necessary for collation. The results transmitted to the Results Viewing Portal, are intended to allow the public to view polling unit results on election day.

In Obi v INEC (No. 1) (2023) 19 NWLR, the Supreme Court also clarified that the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV) is not a collation system. As their names suggest, the Collation System and the INEC Results Viewing Portal are components of the election process, and serve distinct yet, complementary functions within it. The Collation System includes Centres, where results are compiled at various stages of the election. Accordingly, results transmitted to the collation system, enable the relevant collation officer to verify polling unit results as needed for collation. The results transmitted to the Results Viewing Portal are intended to give the general public the opportunity to view polling unit results on election day.

The widespread anger over the rejection of real-time electronic transmission to the IReV portal is thus, misplaced. The focus should be on the mandatory electronic transmission of results to the collation system, rather than to the INEC Result Viewing Portal. Whether results are transmitted mandatorily or at discretion to the Result Viewing Portal, does not alter the fact that its purpose is to allow the public to view polling unit results. It does not enter the collation system, nor change the current situation.

Furthermore, Section 152 of the Bill, on interpretation, defines “transmit” as “to send, transfer or communicate from one person or place to another manually or electronically.” The Bill, as currently worded, even if enacted, will not resolve any issues; it will only give Nigerians a false and misplaced hope that the results of the 2027 general election will be transmitted electronically to the Collation System, when in fact, this is not the case.

Other Issues

For the electoral management body, planning is essential for a successful election. The Commission suggested to the Joint Committee of the National Assembly on Electoral matters that the invitation for political parties to verify their identities using samples of relevant electoral materials proposed for the election, should occur 60 days before the election; however, it was changed back to the original 20 days.

INEC will produce ballot papers for a registered voter population of 84,004,084 (2023 figure), potentially rising to over 90,000,000 for the 2027 election. This includes one Presidential election, 28 Governorship elections, 109 Senatorial Districts, 360 Federal Constituencies, and 993 State Constituencies, with deployment to 176,846 polling units. These ballot papers feature security elements, and some may be printed abroad, transported by trucks, and secured in the State Offices of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Therefore, time is of the essence.

Section 77 of the Act was amended to prevent seasonal migration, promote democracy within political parties, and encourage members to uphold the party’s principles and ideals, thereby discouraging defection in search of a platform.

The Joint Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that each registered political party should keep a digital register of its members, including their name, gender, date of birth, address, State, Local Government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number, and photograph, in both physical and electronic formats. Upon registration, a membership card must be issued to each member. Each party is required to make this register available to the Commission at least 30 days before the scheduled date for party primaries, congresses or conventions. Only members listed in the register shall be eligible to vote and stand for election in party primaries, congresses, and conventions. The Senate shortened this period from 30 days to 7 days, and removed the requirement that only registered members may vote and be voted for.

Conclusion

The timelines and real-time electronic transmission of results are central to the controversy surrounding the Electoral Act 2022 (Repeal and Reenactment) Bill, 2025. The Joint Harmonisation Committee of the National Assembly must resolve these issues before passing the Bill to the President. Other contested matters, are less significant than these. INEC must engage with the leadership of the National Assembly. The future of the electoral process and the 2027 election, depends on our actions or inactions regarding the Electoral Act and the Constitution.

Festus Okoye, Lawyer; former INEC National Commissioner on Information and Voter Education

Needless Controversy Over the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025

Kunle Edun, SAN

Section 47 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) as amended, establishes the National Assembly which is made of two chambers, namely; the House of the Representative (lower/Green Chamber) and the Senate (Upper/Red Chamber).

The Constitution, in Section 4, also places the sole responsibility of lawmaking as it concerns the Federation on the National Assembly. However, for there to be a Law/Act per se, there must be a majority vote case by all the members of the National Assembly at a joint section and thereafter, assented to by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, this is as contained in Section 58 CFRN.

In a nutshell, in respect of the recently passed Electoral Amendment Bill by the Senate on Wednesday the 4th day of February, for the Bill to become a Law/Act both Chambers of the National Assembly must agree and vote on the various issues/Clauses as contained in the Bill seeking to amend the 2022 Electoral Act.

However, the Senate during its plenary deliberated on some of the issues listed below as it relates to the Bill for the amendment of the 2022 Electoral Act. They are:

Rejection of Transmission of Election Results

One of the major decisions taken by the Senate, was the rejection of the proposal to make the electronic transmission of election results from polling units to INEC’s after vote counting. Instead, under Clause 60, the Senate retained the provision in the 2022 Electoral Act that allows election results to be transmitted to the Collation Centre.

In my view however, I wish the Senate would allow for transmission of election results in real-time, in order to foster transparency and confidence in the Electoral system.

Blockage of the Download of e-Voters card from the INEC Website

On voter identification under Clause 47, the Senate rejected a proposal to allow alternative forms of identification for voting other than the Permanent Voter Card (PVC). Rather, they replaced “smart card readers” with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for accreditation and voting, thereby retaining the PVC as the sole mandatory means of identification at polling units. Initially, the Bill had proposed that since BVAS does not read the microchip embedded in PVCs, the card should no longer be compulsory for voting, allowing the use of the National Identification Number (NIN), Nigerian passport, or birth certificate. However, the Senate disagreed with this proposal, and retained the PVC as the primary mode of voter identification.

We live in the 21st century where technology has taken the centre stage, turning a blind eye to the role technology has played in making our lives much easier, is nothing short of wholesome foolery. I beg the Senate to reconsider it’s position as it relates to the use of e-Voters card or other valid means of identification, so as to ensure a smooth running of the forthcoming 2027 general elections.

Reduction of Notice of Election from 360 days to 180 days

The Senate also amended Clause 28 of the electoral timetable by reducing the period within which INEC must publish a notice of election from 360 days to 180 days.

This is a bold move by the Senate to expunge the spirit of tardiness from INEC, and I must say it is a move in the right direction.

Reduction of timeline for publishing list of candidates from 150 days to 60 days

Under Clause 29, the deadline for political parties to submit their list of candidates was reduced from 120 days to 90 days before the election.

This is also commendable, as political parties are to stand on their toes and take electioneering seriously, as this will help in the conduct of primaries timeously and give the INEC ample time to plan towards the main election and other logistics associated with it.

Furthermore, it is indisputable that our electoral jurisprudence has been unstable over the years, flowing from events which have occurred over the years; from the issue of securing 25% vote cast in Abuja by a Presidential candidate to become President, to the issue of retainership of seats by lawmakers after defecting to other political parties, and others. Though the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to make laws for the Federation, those powers must be exercised “for the peace, order and good government of the Federation” as enshrined in Section 4 CFRN (as amended). Thus, it is incumbent on the National Assembly to make laws which will reflect the will of the people (Nigerians) at all times, most especially during the legislative process such as this, failure of which anarchy may loom.

It is interesting that the House of Representative has taken a more progressive approach towards the Amendment Bill, as against attitude of the Senate. It is our hope therefore, that when both Houses convene to harmonise their respective positions with respect to the outstanding discrepancies, that the will of the people will be respected, and a more stable and coherent Electoral Law will be passed.

Kunle Edun, SAN, former National Publicity Secretary, Nigerian Bar Association

Electoral Bill: Senate’s Vote and Impending Regression of Electoral Reform Gains

Samson Itodo

On February 4, 2026, Nigeria’s Senate passed the Electoral Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Amendment Bill. What might otherwise have been routine legislative business, quickly sparked significant public outcry. The Senate’s position on several critical provisions diverging sharply from that of the House of Representatives, triggered widespread condemnation from civil society, opposition Lawmakers, and concerned citizens.

At issue are three interrelated pillars of electoral governance: transparency of results transmission, inclusivity of voter access, and certainty of electoral timelines. The Senate’s decisions rejecting electronic transmission of results, blocking downloadable electronic voter cards, and compressing critical pre-election timelines directly, affect each of these pillars. The rejection of electronic transmission of results, is not merely a technological choice. It is a structural decision about where discretion resides, within the electoral chain. The implications for 2027 are stark: Nigeria approaches another consequential election with an electoral framework designed to accommodate, rather than prevent, result manipulation.

Yet, when the Bill reached third reading on February 4, 2026, the Senate rejected the amendment to Clause 60(3) that would have required presiding officers to “electronically transmit results from each polling unit to the IReV portal in real time”. Instead, Senator Akpabio noted that legislators retained the existing provision allowing INEC to “transfer results in a manner as prescribed by the Commission”, the identical language whose discretionary nature enabled 2023’s manipulation.

In a surprising development, some opposition Senators led by Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe addressed a press conference asserting that the Senate had, in fact, overwhelmingly voted in favour of mandatory electronic transmission. These conflicting accounts have deepened public confusion, and raised legitimate questions about what precisely transpired during the vote. Until the official Vote and Proceedings are published, the record remains contested. But, one fact is clear: there is a concerted effort to resist embedding mandatory electronic transmission into the Electoral Act.

As our electoral experience reveals, the most vulnerable stage of elections, is the transition from polling unit results to collation centres. Where result transmission lacks real-time transparency, opportunities for alteration, delay, or contestation increase. Electronic transmission reduces this vulnerability, by creating parallel audit trails and limiting human interference between declaration at the polling unit and aggregation at collation centres. By rejecting this safeguard, the Senate effectively re-expands discretionary space within the results management process. In a context like Nigeria, where post-election litigation is frequent and trust in collation processes remains fragile, this decision increases the probability of disputes, not their resolution.

The Collation Centre Black Box

The critical vulnerability exploited in 2023, was the gap between polling unit results and higher-level collation. At polling units, BVAS technology functioned reasonably well: voter authentication occurred biometrically, results were announced publicly, and Form EC8A was signed by party agents. The problem emerged at ward, local government, and State collation centres, spaces where result sheets could be altered, where party agents could be intimidated or excluded, and where mysteriously, the results that had been visible at polling units transformed during aggregation.

Election Tribunals heard extensive testimony about this phenomenon. In Atiku Abubakar v INEC (2023), Petitioners presented evidence that result sheets arrived at State collation centres, with figures different from those recorded at polling units. The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that because the Electoral Act made transmission discretionary rather than mandatory, INEC’s failure to upload results in real-time did not invalidate the election – precisely the legal gap that mandatory transmission would have closed. This judicial reasoning exposes the fundamental flaw in discretionary frameworks: when transmission is optional, its absence cannot be challenged. Mandatory transmission would have established a chain of custody making it legally impossible for polling unit results to “change” during collation, without triggering invalidity. Discretionary transmission makes such changes technically irregular, but legally sustainable.

Rejecting Downloadable Voter Cards: Access and Administrative Fragility

The refusal to allow downloadable electronic voter cards, must also be understood within Nigeria’s history of logistical bottlenecks in voter card production and distribution. Electoral integrity encompasses not only accurate counting, but also equitable access to participation. Administrative failures that prevent registered voters from obtaining physical Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs), have historically produced de facto disenfranchisement. The proposal to allow electronic alternatives, was a pragmatic innovation intended to mitigate State incapacity. Its rejection preserves a rigid system in which voters bear the consequences of administrative inefficiency.

Compressed Timelines and the Politics of Uncertainty

Perhaps, the most structurally consequential amendment is the compression of electoral timelines, reducing the notice of elections from 360 to 180 days and slashing nomination publication periods from 150 to 60 days. Time in electoral administration, is not neutral. It shapes preparedness, procurement cycles, training, litigation windows, party compliance, and citizen awareness. Shortened timelines also constrain oversight actors’ civil society, media, political parties, and voters from scrutinising candidate eligibility, monitoring procurement processes, and preparing for credible participation. In complex electoral environments, certainty is stabilising. Compressed timelines generate uncertainty, and uncertainty in polarised contexts amplifies suspicion. Legislating shorter timelines in a system already burdened by logistical complexity, risks institutional overload. The predictable outcome is operational stress, increased litigation, and contested legitimacy. The Senate’s position will complicate INEC’s electoral preparations, and result in logistical challenges in future elections.

The Path Forward: Harmonisation as Battleground

The Bill now heads to harmonisation between the Senate and House versions, before going to President Tinubu. Both Chambers have constituted Conference Committees, to harmonise different positions. This is where the real fight begins. The Conference Committee, now carries historic responsibility. It must decide whether Nigeria moves forward toward greater transparency, or backward into procedural fog. Civil society must mobilise. Opposition parties must unite, around this single issue. Citizens must make electronic transmission non-negotiable. Because here’s what’s at stake: if mandatory electronic transmission fails at harmonisation, the 2027 elections will be 2023 redux same BVAS machines, same collation centre mysteries, same tribunals ruling that INEC’s technological failures don’t invalidate fraudulent victories. We will have an election where everyone knows who won and everyone accepts who was declared winner, and those two facts will remain tragically distinct. Africa’s largest democracy, deserves better than this. The question is whether its citizens will demand it.

Samson Itodo, Election, Democracy, and Public Policy Enthusiast; Executive Director of Yiaga Africa; Principal Partner, Election Law Centre; Chairperson, African Union Advisory Group on AI in Peace, Security and Governance; Member, Kofi Annan Foundation Board and the Board of Advisers of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)

Removal of Mandatory Real-Time Electronic Transmission from Electoral Bill

Sylvester Udemezue

Regarding the controversy surrounding the alleged rejection of the express inclusion of mandatory real-time electronic transmission of election results in the draft Electoral Bill 2026, I have just reviewed a news report titled “Electoral Act: Akpabio Admits, Defends Removal of ‘Real-Time’ from Bill”, published by Tribune Online on 8 February, 2026. In light of the Senate President’s clarification, it can now be said, without speculation, that we have heard directly from the horse’s mouth. The clarification by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, confirms that the National Assembly deliberately removed the “real-time” electronic transmission requirement in order to preserve discretion for INEC and, by implication, to retain manual collation as the decisive stage of result declaration. The unavoidable implication of this position is stark:  electronic transmission is no longer treated as an indispensable safeguard of electoral integrity, but as an optional, discretionary, and secondary mechanism: subordinate to manual Form EC8A and other physical election records. This position is deeply problematic, both legally and empirically.

(1) Electronic Transmission that isn’t Real-time and Polling-unit-based, is Functionally Useless

If electronic transmission will not occur from the polling unit, on election day, within the election timeframe, then there is little or no rational basis for approving electronic transmission at all. Transmission that occurs (a) after election officials have left polling units, (b) after manual collation has commenced, or (c) on a later date, is structurally incapable of preventing fraud. It merely digitises an already-compromised process. The polling unit is the only point in the electoral chain, where results are still relatively insulated from human interference. Once Form EC8A leaves the polling unit, the integrity of the process collapses under the weight of human discretion, logistics, political pressure, and institutional opacity.

(2) The “Network Failure” Argument is a Red Herring

The Senate President’s argument, that mandatory real-time transmission would prevent elections from holding in areas with poor network or grid failure, is conceptually flawed and empirically weak. Mandatory electronic transmission, does not mean uniform technical conditions everywhere; it means uniform legal obligation. As shown in comparative electoral systems where electronic transmission is the order (India, Brazil, Estonia, and even parts of the United States), and as analysed in my article cited above, technical contingencies are anticipated and legislated for, not used as an excuse to abandon systemic safeguards.

(3) Technical Exceptions Can be Legislated, Without Destroying the Rule

Rather than reject mandatory electronic transmission, the Electoral Act can, and should, contain carefully designed contingency provisions, such as: (a) repeat polls where transmission is technically impossible, (b) supervised relocation of electoral officers (with party agents and security) to the nearest network-enabled area to ensure transmission. These solutions are extensively canvassed and illustrated with Draft Provisions in my said article, and they reflect best practices in election-integrity engineering.

(4) Poor Network Or Grid Failure isn’t a Legally Defensible Ground for Rejecting Mandatory Transmission

Nigeria already conducts online banking, online BVN verification, online NIN enrolment, online real-time voter accreditation (BVAS), across the same terrain now cited as technologically unfit for elections. To suddenly invoke infrastructure weakness only at the collation stage of elections, is neither honest nor persuasive. It reveals a preference for human discretion over technological constraint, which is precisely where electoral fraud thrives.

(5) Non-mandatory Electronic Transmission Serves No Material Purpose

There is no point whatsoever in providing for electronic transmission, if it is not made mandatory. Electronic transmission that occurs (a) after results have been manually handled, (b) after forms have moved through multiple hands, or (c) after collation centres have already been engaged, does nothing to cure the original mischief. It becomes a ceremonial afterthought: useful for public relations, but useless for integrity and credibility.

(6) The Core Objective of Electronic Transmission is to Neutralise Human Interference at the Collation Stage

As rigorously argued in my paper, cited above, the principal demand for mandatory real-time electronic transmission from polling units, is to eliminate human interference with Form EC8A and allied materials after voting ends. Thus, any legal framework that delays transmission or permits discretionary timing, or allows results to be “cleaned up” before digital capture, defeats the very purpose of electoral reform.

(7) The Senate’s Justification is Backward-looking and Systemically Dangerous

In light of the above, the Senate’s rejection of mandatory real-time electronic transmission is unfounded, unreasonable, inconsistent with global best practices, and dangerously backward-looking. A democracy that fears binding, automated, real-time transparency is one that still trusts human discretion over institutional safeguards, and that is the very architecture of electoral fraud.

(8) Bottomline:

If credible and transparent collation processes are to be achieved in general elections in Nigeria going forward, four requirements must be mandatory and non-negotiable regarding electronic transmission of results, and this my own understanding of “real-time” in the present circumstances:

1. Electronic transmission must be expressly mandated by the parent Act: the Electoral Act.

2. The time of transmission must be clearly defined, and made mandatory. As already explained above, electronic transmission is meaningless if results are sent the next day, after manipulation has already occurred.

3. The place of transmission must be defined and made mandatory: the polling unit. Transmission from collation centres or INEC offices defeats the very purpose, as fraud or manipulation may already have taken place before the results get there.

4. Any result not electronically transmitted in the manner prescribed by law must be automatically invalid, null. However, where excluding such results would materially affect the outcome, fresh elections must be conducted in the affected areas, with strict electronic transmission as a condition for validity.

Sylvester Udemezue (Udems), Member, NBA’s Law Reform Committee