-By Sylvester Udemezue<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cElectoral Act: Akpabio Admits, Defends Removal of \u2018Real-Time\u2019 from Bill\u201d, published by Tribune Online on 8 February 2026. In light of the Senate President\u2019s clarification, it can now be said, without speculation, that we have heard directly from the horse\u2019s mouth. The clarification by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, confirms that the National Assembly deliberately removed the \u201creal-time\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(1). Electronic Transmission that Is Not Real-time and Polling-unit-based Is Functionally Useless<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 digitizes an already-compromised process. As I have tried to demonstrate in a published work (Sylvester Udemezue, \u2018How Nigeria\u2019s National Assembly Can Make the Electoral System Impregnable on Electronic Transmission to Prevent Fraud During Election Result Collation\u2019, International Journal for Public Policy, Law and Development, 2025 2(3). (India) <https:\/\/ijpld.com\/ijpld\/article\/view\/11> accessed on 08 February 2026, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2). The \u201cNetwork Failure\u201d Argument Is A Red Herring<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Senate President\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3). Technical Exceptions Can Be Legislated Without Destroying The Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4). Poor Network Or Grid Failure Is Not A Legally Defensible Ground For Rejecting Mandatory Transmission<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (5). Non-mandatory Electronic Transmission Serves No Material Purpose<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (6). The Core Objective Of Electronic Transmission is to Neutralize Human Interference at the Collation Stage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ccleaned up\u201d before digital capture, defeats the very purpose of electoral reform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (7). The Senate\u2019s Justification Is Backward-looking And Systemically Dangerous<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In light of the above, the Senate\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (8). Bottomline<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201creal-time\u201d in the present circumstances:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Electronic transmission must be expressly mandated by the parent Act: the Electoral Act<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CAVEAT<\/strong>: The opinion above is my personal opinion. It\u2019s not a partisan or group statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further Reading On Why Strong Legal Framework Is essential to ensure credible elections in Nigeria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Sylvester Udemezue, \u2018How Nigeria\u2019s National Assembly Can Make the Electoral System Impregnable on Electronic Transmission to Prevent Fraud During Election Result Collation\u2019, International Journal for Public Policy, Law and Development, 2025 2(3). (India) <https:\/\/ijpld.com\/ijpld\/article\/view\/11>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Sylvester Udemezue, \u2018Amupitan: Nigeria\u2019s Electoral Problem Lies Not in INEC Chairman\u2019s Qualifications But in Weak and Manipulable Laws\u2019 (TheNigeriaLawyer, 17 October 2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Sylvester Udemezue, \u2018Nigeria\u2019s Backward Culture of Treating Symptoms, Ignoring Causes: The Burden of Proof Debate as a Mirror of Systemic Electoral Dysfunction\u2019 (The Reality Ministry, 31 October 2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n\n\n\n