The year 2026 is a defining year in the democratic consolidation of Nigerian political journey. This is more so, with the preparations for the 2027 general elections in the offing. In the past few days, those who should know better have been at dagger’s drawn with the legislative assembly on crucial issues surrounding the amendment of the Electoral Act 2022.

Public scrutiny on the propriety of the retention of a section of the act has been intense. Central to this debate is the Nigerian Senate’s refusal to impose mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results.

Many pressure groups have refused to balance the coin, probably due to limited information. Consequently, they have framed the position of the Nigerian Senate as antithetical to transparency and fairness in the electoral process. In fact, many see it, wrongly too as a preparation for future rigging of the 2027 elections.

This is not unexpected in a nation where people sometimes turn deaf ear to facts by refusing to yield the farmland to those who know how to tilt the ground whereas a deeper legal and administrative analysis of the situation shows that the position of the Senate is firmly rooted in democratic safeguards, institutional checks, and practical realities.

There is no doubt that most contributors to the debate are confused about the divide between “electronic transmission of results” and “real time electronic transmission of results”. Moreover, a number of the critics rarely understands the feasibility of their request because they are distant from the field of activities of election.

The credit that must be accorded to the key players of the Nigerian Electoral Commission is that the organisation has come a long way in its checkered past. From the days of Electoral Commission of Nigeria(ECN)(1950-1966) led by Chief EyoEsua to Chief Michael Ani’s and Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey’s Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO)( 1976-1983) and the National Electoral Commission of Nigeria of Professor Eme Awa (1987-1989), Professor Humphrey Nwosu and several others such as Professor Uya,Chief Summer Dagogo Jack, Justice Ephraim Akpata NEC (1989-2005) to the present day Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

From Professor Maurice Iwu to Professor AttahiruJega to Professor Mahmood Yakubu, there had been innovation, development and progress in the way Nigeria runs its election to the extent that its models are adapted in many other less endowed countries of the world.

The outstanding achievement of the Electoral Act 2022 is in its major advancement in electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria. The act modernizes elections with technological innovations by giving legal backing to electronic accreditation and result processes through the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), gives financial autonomy to INEC, introduced continuous voter registration and redefied Over-Voting Rules thereby expanding opportunities for electoral transparency.

Despite these innovations, one will agree that no legislation is infallible. The general election that followed was, therefore, a litmus test that exposed the limitations in the operations of this act in real time. Thiswas what legitimately signaled the need for a legislative review.The word “amendment’’ itself shows that the exercise represents a refinement process and not a repel or reversal of the act.

For those who has expected that the act was to be confined to the dustbin of history, the intention of the Senate is at variance to this expectation. Rather, it rejected an absolutist approach that makes real-time electronic transmission compulsory across all polling units. Such rigidity would have ignored the reality of the Nigeria’s uneven digital infrastructure, security challenges, and administrative constraints.

Those who have been on the field with INEC will tell you that mandatory real time electronic transmission of results risks weakening, rather than strengthening, electoral integrity. Nigeria’s electoral architecture is deliberately layered to prevent fraud.

Results pass through polling units, wards, local governments, states, and finally the national collation Centre. Each level acts as an independent verification point.

When results are instantly transmitted and treated as final at the polling-unit level, the opportunity for scrutiny and correction is drastically reduced. Accidental or induced errors become instantly elevated, creating disputes that are harder to resolve. They may even go undetected.

Polling units are the most vulnerable points in the electoral chain. Officials at this level often operate under pressure, fatigue, and, in some cases, intimidation. Unless Nigeria completely adopts electronic voting, mandatory real time electronic transmission of results would merely accelerate the consequences of any compromise at this weakest point.

Real time transmission of results at that level compromises in no small measure the integrity of the election.

The protesters on the street, the social mediausers and the electronic media spokespersons should understand that the BVAS only registers voters and it does not and cannot house or transmit results.

Protesters should understand that technology does not completely remove rigging. A lot of unseen and unprepared events such as device malfunction, network instability, data corruption, and cybersecurity threats introduce new risks. Some of these situations are often less visible and difficult to trace than physical manipulation.

A most misinterpreted safeguards in the Nigerian electoral system is the use of statutory result sheets. These include Form EC8A filled at the polling unit, Form EC8B for the Ward level, Form EC8C for collation at the Local Government, EC8D for collation at the State, and EC8E for National collation. These are not mere bureaucratic relics but the spinal cord of strong, reliable and sustainable electoral transparency and accountability.

Each EC8 form type serves as a documentary checkpoint. Results recorded at the polling unit on Form EC8A are publicly displayed, signed by party agents, observers, and presiding officers. This immediate transparency allows voters and stakeholders to independently record results, thereby creating a parallel evidence trail.The results in each lower EC8 form serve as feeder for the next level in its alphabetical order with, each subsequentform aggregating and verifying figures from the lower level.

This layered process ensures that discrepancies can be detected and the officer at that level is called to question in the full glare of the public. We should recall that no INEC result is released or submitted in privacy.

If figures at ward or local government levels do not tally with polling unit records, the inconsistency becomes evident and immediately contestable.

The existence of these forms in their hard copy serves as strong legal evidence. Courts rely heavily on EC8 forms in election petitions because they are tangible, signed, and contains traceable data. Unlike purely electronic records, they can be forensically examined, compared, and authenticated. The most interesting part of the process is that party agents are enjoined to sign the form and also entitled to a copy at all levels of the collation.

This means that the availability of multiple records of the same result across different levels would reduce the likelihood of undetected manipulationand prevent unilateral alteration of results. In all these, party agents and observers are expected to act as watchdogs at every stage.

Until Nigeria has the wherewithal to introduce full electoral polling system, the preference of the Senate for a hybrid electoral system with human oversight and documentary safeguards is most welcome and appreciated.

The democratic wisdom of the Senate is commendable and its position on the Electoral Act amendment reflects responsible lawmaking grounded in Nigeria’s realities. There is hardly any democratic country that does not maintain physical appraisaltrajectories alongside electronic systems because the hallmark of democracy is on accountability and verifiability and not on speed alone.

Moreover, mandatory real time electronic transmission may be appealing in theory but in practice it could undermine safeguards that are designed to protect electoral credibility.

By its intention to preserve and retain the EC8 series, thereby allowing multi layered collation processes, the Senate has chosen stability of our democratic processes over unworkable experimentation that would boomerang in the final analysis. A supportfor this position is not anti-reform. It is pro-democracy.

A major aspect in which INEC has failed is its reluctance to fully leverage on the responsibility accorded to it by PART 1 Section 2a of the Electoral Act, 2022 which enjoins the commission to in addition to the functions conferred on it by the constitution,conduct voters and civic education. This aspect is grossly under explored resulting in profound ignorance about its activities even by those who should know better.

Many knowledgeable individuals and organisations continue to falter in their reasoning because INEC has refused to open its mouth when it is very expedient to talk. Not all of us will work with INEC to appreciate its travails and therefore, more education is necessary if the sweat of INEC on the electoral field must be appreciated by the people.

Ojikutu is a Professor of Statistics (rtd), University of Lagos.