Electoral Act Amendment Bill: As Senate, House Move to Harmonise Positions…

As the Senate and House of Representatives head into a crucial conference committee on electronic transmission of election results, sharp divisions over mandatory real-time uploads versus discretionary manual collation threaten to redefine Nigeria’s electoral transparency framework. Sunday Aborisade in this piece, examines the stakes, the fault lines, and the compromise required to protect democratic credibility.

If Nigeria’s electoral law leaves room for the widespread manual collation of results across 176,974 polling units on the grounds of “network challenges”, the consequences may be far-reaching: delayed declarations, disputes over figures, accusations of manipulation, and renewed post-election tensions. In a nation where electoral credibility is closely tied to political stability, even the perception of opacity can trigger uncertainty.

It is against this combustible backdrop that the Senate and the House of Representatives are heading into a decisive conference committee on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026. At issue is Clause 60(3), the provision governing the transmission of election results.

The Senate has passed an amendment approving electronic transmission of results from polling units but retaining a fallback to manual collation where transmission fails. The House of Representatives, by indications from earlier debates, is expected to insist on mandatory, real-time electronic upload of results without provision for manual collation.

Between discretion and compulsion lies the task now before the Senate’s reconstituted conference committee, chaired by Senator Simon Lalong (Plateau South), with members including Tahir Monguno, Adamu Aleiro, Orji Kalu, Abba Moro, Asuquo Ekpeyong, Aminu Abbas, Tokunbo Abiru, Isah Jibrin, Ipalibo Banigo, Peter Nwebonyi, and Adeniyi Adegbonmire.

Their mandate goes beyond defending the red chamber’s position. They must reconcile technology with terrain, transparency with practicality, and public trust with institutional realism.

The controversy that has culminated in the present impasse began with language. In its earlier version of the bill passed on February 4, the Senate retained the word “transfer” rather than “transmission” of results, a choice that sparked widespread criticism and raised fears about possible dilution of electronic safeguards.

In a tense and disorderly emergency sitting days later, the Senate rescinded that decision. Invoking its Standing Orders, lawmakers revisited Clause 60(3) and approved a fresh amendment providing that presiding officers shall electronically transmit results to INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV) after completing and signing Form EC8A.

However, the amended clause also provides that where electronic transmission fails due to network or communication challenges, the manually completed and duly signed Form EC8A shall serve as the primary source for collation and declaration.

Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, clarified during plenary that the new framework empowers electronic transmission but recognises contingencies. For supporters, this strikes a balance between reform and realism. For critics, it leaves a loophole that could undermine the spirit of electoral transparency.

House of Representatives is expected to test that balance.

At the heart of the coming negotiations is a philosophical divide: should electronic transmission of results be mandatory and real-time in all circumstances, or should INEC retain discretion to revert to manual processes where technological challenges arise?

Proponents of a mandatory framework argue that only a clear, unequivocal legal obligation can prevent backsliding. They contend that if the law allows discretion, the exception may become the norm, particularly in high-stakes contests.

On the other hand, Senate advocates of conditional flexibility point to Nigeria’s uneven telecommunications infrastructure. Vast rural areas still experience unreliable connectivity. In such locations, insisting on real-time upload without fallback options could stall the collation process, disenfranchise voters, or create legal uncertainty if uploads fail.

The Senate’s position reflects a caution that electoral law must anticipate worst-case scenarios. The House’s likely stance reflects a different caution that democracy suffers when transparency is compromised.

The conference committee must now harmonise these cautions into a coherent legislative outcome.

To navigate this delicate terrain, the Senate delegation should approach negotiations with a structured agenda built around clear safeguards.

If discretion is to remain, it must be tightly defined. Objective thresholds for invoking manual collation, such as certified network unavailability confirmed by designated officials, would reduce ambiguity. Vague references to “network challenges” risk future disputes.

Even where manual collation becomes necessary, electronic records, where available, should remain authoritative. The law can stipulate that any later-uploaded result must correspond exactly with the manually declared Form EC8A, with penalties for discrepancies.

If transmission fails at a polling unit, there should be mandatory public documentation of the failure, time-stamped and signed by party agents and security personnel. Such documentation would reduce suspicion and provide an audit trail.

The law could also require that where real-time upload fails, results must be electronically uploaded within a specified timeframe once connectivity is restored. This would ensure that manual fallback does not permanently exclude digital verification.

INEC’s discretion, if retained, should be guided by published regulations laid before the National Assembly. This would preserve operational independence while enhancing oversight.

Beyond the legal text lies the realm of perception. The disorderly Senate sitting that preceded the amendment, marked by procedural disputes, voice votes, and calls for division, has already heightened public scrutiny.

Opposition figures and civil society actors have framed the debate as a test of commitment to electoral reform. The political temperature surrounding the bill means that whatever compromise emerges must not only function technically but also command legitimacy.

For many Nigerians, electronic transmission symbolises progress from contentious electoral cycles of the past. Any dilution, however justified in practical terms, risks being interpreted as regression.

The conference committee must therefore communicate its rationale clearly. Technical explanations about connectivity gaps and rural infrastructure must be matched with firm assurances that manual processes will not become a backdoor to opacity.

Nigeria’s democratic evolution has been punctuated by incremental reforms — biometric accreditation, electronic voter registers, and the introduction of the IReV portal. Each innovation has been contested before becoming embedded.

The present debate is part of that continuum. It is not merely about data upload speeds or network towers; it is about the credibility of mandates and the peaceful transfer of power.

An electoral framework perceived as ambiguous can magnify post-election grievances. Conversely, an overly rigid framework that collapses under logistical strain can create its own crisis.

Should the Senate and House fail to agree, the bill may stall, leaving ambiguities unresolved ahead of future elections. Should they agree on a provision that lacks public confidence, disputes may migrate from the chamber to the courts and beyond.

But a carefully negotiated clause one that mandates electronic transmission as the norm, narrowly circumscribes exceptions, and embeds transparency safeguards, could strengthen the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral architecture.

For Senator Lalong and his colleagues, this is both a legislative and historic responsibility.

Defending the red chamber’s position does not require inflexibility. It requires articulating why contingency planning is prudent, and demonstrating that such prudence will not erode transparency.

If approached with openness, technical rigour, and sensitivity to public sentiment, the negotiations can yield a clause that is technologically progressive, legally sound, and politically credible.

In a democracy of Nigeria’s scale and diversity, perfection may be elusive. But clarity, accountability and trust are achievable. The conference committee must aim for nothing less.