CSOs: 2026 Electoral Act Undermines Electoral Integrity, Entrenches Incumbency Advantage

•Insist political class betrayed trust of Nigerians

Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja

A coalition of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) has said that the Electoral Act 2026 contains significant flaws that would undermine electoral integrity, entrench incumbency advantage, and exclude millions of Nigerians from meaningful political participation.

It added that the Act is imperfect, incomplete and leaves dangerous loopholes open and erects new barriers to participation.

The CSOs which included Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), The Kukah Center, International Press Centre (IPC), ElectHer, Nigerian Women Trust Fund, The Albino Foundation (TAF) Africa and Yiaga Africa expressed their dissatisfaction while addressing a press conference on Thursday in Abuja.

Speaking on behalf of the CSOs, the Founder of TAF Africa, Mr. Jake Epelle said while they acknowledged the passage of the Electoral Bill 2026 by the National Assembly and the Presidential assent granted to the Electoral Act 2026 which formally repeals and replaces the Electoral Act 2022.

However, he added that the CSOs cannot ignore the deeply troubling manner in which the legislation was processed and passed.

Epelle stressed that the speed, and opacity, raise serious concerns about legislative transparency and the commitment of lawmakers to genuine electoral reform.

His words: “We must therefore state clearly and without equivocation: the Electoral Act 2026 that has now been signed into law is a missed opportunity for the transformative electoral reform that Nigeria requires and that Nigerian citizens deserve.”

Epelle noted that at a time when public confidence in elections remained fragile, this law should have decisively strengthened transparency, eliminated ambiguities, and deepened safeguards against manipulation.

Instead, he said, the Act creates more vulnerabilities in the electoral process.

Epelle expressed concern about the process through which the Electoral Bill was passed between the third reading and adoption of the harmonised version of the bill.

He added: “The final version of the Bill voted upon reportedly contained last-minute amendments that were neither published nor made available to civil society or the broader public prior to adoption.

“More concerning is that the harmonised Bill produced by the Conference Committee was adopted by both chambers via voice vote without prior distribution of the final consolidated text to all members as was reported by some legislators.

“Several legislators subsequently acknowledged publicly that they voted based on assurances from Senate and House leadership rather than their own review of the final legislative language. This fundamentally violates the principle of informed legislative consent and weakens parliamentary accountability.

“Debate on critical clauses including provisions relating to real-time electronic transmission of results was reportedly curtailed. Legislative changes introduced in the final hours before a vote, without publication, scrutiny, or structured debate, are inconsistent with the transparency standards expected in democratic lawmaking.”

The CSOs said members cannot meaningfully legislate on provisions they have not reviewed in their final form, and the public cannot engage in a process from which it is excluded.

Epelle pointed out that when reforms are rushed, consolidated without scrutiny, and adopted without full disclosure, public confidence inevitably erodes, saying this approach does not reflect deliberative lawmaking and reflects a troubling departure from the transparency and accountability that electoral reform demands.

He noted: “The decision of the Presidency to grant assent without addressing the substantive legal, technical, and democratic concerns raised by civil society, professional bodies, and even some members of the National Assembly signal a troubling prioritisation of political expediency over electoral integrity.

“Electoral reform should be guided by broad consultation and consensus, not compressed timelines and executive finality. This sets a dangerous precedent: that foundational democratic laws may be enacted despite credible warnings from stakeholders charged with safeguarding electoral transparency.

“Such an approach risks eroding public trust at a time when confidence in the electoral system remains fragile and must be deliberately strengthened, not casually tested.”

The CSOs commended the National Assembly for introducing Section 18 which allows Nigerians to download their voter cards from INEC’s website, stressing that it would increase voter participation and reduce disenfranchisement often associated with missing or unissued voter cards.

Epelle noted: “Despite these gains, the Electoral Act 2026 contains significant flaws that will undermine electoral integrity, entrench incumbency advantage, and exclude millions of Nigerians from meaningful political participation.

“Civil society raised each of these issues with evidence-based recommendations during the legislative process. The failure to address them represents a failure of political will.

“Section 60(3) mandates electronic transmission but includes a proviso: if transmission ‘fails as a result of communication failure,’ the physical EC8A form becomes the primary source for collation.

“This language is unchanged from the version civil society flagged as dangerous. ‘Communication failure’ is undefined. There is no independent verification mechanism. There are no consequences for deliberate sabotage disguised as technical failure. The 2023 elections demonstrated how this ambiguity can be exploited. This loophole will be tested again in 2027 and the Act provides no protection.”

The Coalition stated categorically that Section 65 of the Electrical Act which restricts the power of review to reports filed by INEC officials, some of whom might be complicit, was against the spirit behind the power of review vested in INEC.

It added that this provision bars political parties, candidates, accredited observers, and their agents from activating the review process, even where they tender compelling evidence of a manipulated and unlawful results declaration.

It, therefore, called on the National Assembly to promptly publish the final version of the Electoral Act 2026 as signed into law to ensure public awareness, legal clarity, and stakeholder engagement.

“In conclusion, the Electoral Act 2026 is now law. It is imperfect. It is incomplete. It leaves dangerous loopholes open and erects new barriers to participation,” it said.

The CSOs lamented that the review of timelines — release of notice of elections, submission of list of candidates, and INEC publication of list of candidates increases logistics risk and puts the electoral system under pressure.

It stressed that the shorter timelines for publishing a list of candidates would affect production of sensitive materials like ballot papers.

On his part, Samson Itodo said the Electoral Act 2026 does not guarantee the credibility of the process.

He stated: “How do you pass an Act that limits the power to activate INEC’s administrative review of election results when they are declared under duress or in contravention to only when you receive reports from INEC officials; When we know from previous elections that sometimes the returning officers, the collation officer and sometimes INEC officials are the same people who are complicit. You think that people who are complicit will file a report. No, they won’t.

“And so when you look at all the safeguards that Nigerians demanded to be included in this Act to safeguard the legitimacy of future elections, what was done was to remove the safeguard. So we don’t agree that this Act aligns with the wills and aspirations of people.

“In actual fact, it is an Act that runs contrary to public expectations, and I would say that the entire political class involved in this betrayed the trust of Nigeria.”

Responding, the Spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Hon. Akin Rotimi acknowledged that he knows a good number of Nigerians are not quite pleased with the outcome, but added that the law was passed in keeping with the Parliamentary rules.

He said he did not agree that yesterday was the darkest day in Nigeria’s democracy, but insisted that it was a step towards a free, fair and transparent elections.

Rotimi said despite the fact that some lawmakers staged a walk out, which he said was part of the legislative process, the process that led to the passing of the Bill was followed and it was credible.

He added that contrary to insinuations, the House did not adopt the Senate version of Clause 60 that deals with the electronic transmission of results.

The Spokesperson noted, “It was neither the Senate nor the House’ original positions. What you had was totally new wording that responded to a lot of the issues, feedback from the public. It was, you can take it. It was neither the Senate original provisions nor the House original positions. It was a new wording that sort of provided a lot more clarity around the process.”