The credibility of any country’s elections directly reflects the quality of its governance. It also shapes the level of trust citizens place in those who govern them. If public officials must bear the title “Your Excellency,” then the process that brings them to office must be excellent, transparent, predictable, and credible.
The 2023 general election tested the strength of the 2022 Electoral Act. That test exposed clear weaknesses. It also explained why civil society groups, election observers, and concerned Nigerians demanded urgent reforms. The objective was straightforward: fix the gaps, strengthen the law, and restore public confidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, the 2023 presidential election ranked among the most keenly contested in Nigeria’s history. Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party challenged the declared outcome up to the Supreme Court. Central to their petitions was INEC’s failure to upload presidential election results polling unit by polling unit, despite repeated assurances.
Before the polls, INEC publicly committed to real-time electronic transmission of results to its IReV portal. This was not an experiment. The commission had successfully transmitted results during off-cycle governorship elections in Edo, Ondo, Ekiti, and Anambra. Those elections were largely judged credible. Expectations were therefore high.
However, while INEC uploaded senatorial and House of Representatives results seamlessly, presidential results never appeared. The commission later blamed a “glitch.” Many Nigerians rejected that explanation.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the verdict was clear. INEC guidelines allowed electronic transmission, but the law did not compel it. As a result, INEC retained discretion. It could transmit results electronically or fall back on manual collation.
That ruling triggered a reform push. Stakeholders moved to amend the law. Their goal was simple and corrective: remove discretion and make real-time transmission mandatory.
Senate’s Retreat from Reform
Against this backdrop, the Senate’s rejection of mandatory real-time transmission must be properly understood and firmly condemned.
By refusing to enshrine this safeguard in law, the Senate weakened the very reforms Nigerians demanded. Worse still, the claim that it merely “retained” the 2022 provisions insults public intelligence. Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s defence amounts to being wise by half. It ignores the core purpose of the amendment process: to respond to judicial interpretation and close legal loopholes.
More troubling are allegations that lawmakers altered or discarded provisions earlier agreed upon at different legislative stages. If true, such conduct undermines parliamentary integrity. Lawmaking must not descend into misrepresentation.
The question, therefore, remains unavoidable: who is afraid of transparent elections in Nigeria?
History offers perspective. Since 2011, successive administrations across party lines have improved the electoral process. The Jonathan administration introduced the smart card reader. The Buhari administration deployed BVAS and IReV. Each reform, though imperfect, pushed Nigeria forward. The 10th National Assembly had a chance to consolidate these gains. It failed.
Elsewhere in Africa, excuses no longer hold. Ghana transmits election results in real time. South Africa does the same. Nigeria, Africa’s largest democracy, cannot continue to hide behind outdated technical arguments.
Some argue that poor network coverage makes real-time transmission unrealistic. That argument collapses under scrutiny. In a country where bandits place phone calls from deep forests, transmitting election results is clearly possible. The problem is not infrastructure. It is political will.
A Pattern Nigerians Must Question
Beyond result transmission, the Senate’s decisions raise deeper concerns. It rejected a 10-year ban on vote buyers. It also dismissed a ₦5 million fine and a two-year jail term for vote-buying offences. Vote-buying remains one of the gravest threats to Nigeria’s democracy. By rejecting stiff penalties, the Senate signalled reluctance to confront electoral corruption.
Equally disturbing is the compression of the electoral timeline. Reducing the election notice period and candidate nomination window from 360 days to 180 days creates avoidable logistical problems for INEC. Elections demand planning. From printing ballot papers to nationwide deployment, timelines matter. Weakening them invites chaos.
The Senate’s decisions speak loudly.
Rejected provisions
- Mandatory real-time transmission of results
- 10-year ban on vote buyers
- ₦5 million fine and two-year jail term for vote-buying
Retained provisions
- BVAS for voter accreditation
- PVC as sole voter identification
- Result transmission at INEC’s discretion
Timeline changes
- Election notice period cut from 360 to 180 days
- Candidates to be nominated 90 days before elections
Taken together, these choices signal not reform, but retreat.
A Call for Responsibility
The harmonisation committee now carries a historic burden. Its members must resist pressure. They must reflect the will of Nigerians, not the comfort of a few powerful actors. This moment demands courage. To defer to the Senate leadership would legitimise regression.
The opposition must also confront its own failures. Democracy weakens when opposition parties fail to act as a real counterweight. Years of passive resistance have emboldened the ruling party. This is not a call for disorder. It is a call for firmness, vigilance, and principled engagement.
Our position is clear. Nigeria deserves an electoral system that builds trust, not suspicion. It deserves laws that prioritise transparency over discretion and deterrence over tolerance for malpractice.
The choices made now will shape the future of our democracy.
History will not excuse half-measures. Nigerians will not either.
By ALO360 Editorial Board
