E-Transmission in Focus: Reform, Retreat, or Compromise Politics?

The Senate has largely reversed its prior opposition to the electronic broadcast of election results following weeks of public indignation and persistent civic pressure. In order to allow the electronic transmission of results from polling places to the Result Viewing Portal (IREV) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), senators revised the Electoral Act on Tuesday. However, there were significant restrictions attached to the concession, which fell well short of the comprehensive transformation that many Nigerians had called for.

Although electronic transmission has been accepted into Nigeria’s voting system, it does so as a guest, welcome but subject to strict oversight.

After votes are counted, election results may be sent online under the amended clause. But legislators added a crucial disclaimer: the physical result sheet, Form EC8A, will be the main source of information in the event that network or internet connectivity fails. Rather than fully embracing electoral transparency, the Senate has chosen a careful, politically calculated compromise by refusing to mandate electronic transmission and keeping manual collation as a backup.

Sen. Tahir Monguno (APC, Borno North), the Senate Chief Whip, moved for an emergency plenary session, which resulted in the amendment. In order to better match the Electoral Act with changing technical realities and public expectations, he contended that the chamber ought to review its previous position. The move was praised by its proponents as striking a practical balance between idealism and viability. But more concerning to critics is a reform that has been slightly watered down to maintain historical vulnerabilities.

Indeed, there was a strong popular outcry after the Senate first rejected mandatory electronic transmission. Pro-democracy groups, media professional associations, and civil society organizations, notably the Nigerian Guild of Editors, cautioned that the ruling might potentially reopen well-known avenues for manipulating results. For many Nigerians, technology is a necessity during elections rather than a luxury; it protects against meddling between polling places and collation centers, which is the most susceptible part of the process.

Thus, the Senate’s reversal seems more like a capitulation than a conversion. From a political perspective, it shows a legislature trying to strike a balance between two opposing forces: the expanding public’s demand for credible elections and the apprehension of long-standing political interests. Human discretion and, thus, political power are curtailed by electronic transmission. That loss of discretion is upsetting to many members of the political class.

The amendment’s changes are significant, but maybe even more significant are the things it protects. The law maintains a procedure that has long been linked to controversy, disagreements, and accusations of manipulation by specifically permitting manual collation to take precedence in situations of “network failure.”

The phrase “network failure” creates ambiguity that is broad enough to include the reform itself in a nation where technological malfunctions and logistical difficulties are frequently mentioned. Disagreements frequently ensue when discretion flourishes.

It is undeniable to any sane observer that Nigeria’s infrastructure is not uniform. Administratively speaking, the clause allows INEC more operational freedom, especially in remote or underdeveloped areas where requiring electronic transmission would not be feasible. In cases where there are real technological difficulties, it protects the electoral authority from charges of non-compliance.

Politically speaking, however, this flexibility is reciprocal. Now, INEC would have to explain why some polling places could transmit information electronically while others couldn’t.

Whether intentional or not, selective application has the potential to erode public confidence, increase suspicion, and open up new legal issues after the election. The amendment may make elections more difficult rather than easier.

More fundamentally, the Senate has maintained the very discretion that reformers aimed to limit by making electronic transmission voluntary rather than required. Disagreements at the polling station are uncommon in hotly contested elections with narrow margins and high stakes. They show up during collation, which is exactly the stage that electronic transmission was intended to protect.

The amendment serves as a political pressure valve in this regard. It calms the populace without radically changing the balance of power throughout the election process. Instead of addressing the more fundamental issue of election credibility, some characterize it as an effort to manage disagreement. This skepticism is reinforced by Nigeria’s reform history, which shows that electoral reforms are frequently presented as advancements while covertly maintaining the status quo.

The amendment is significant, though. For the first time, the legislation clearly recognizes the use of electronic results transmission. That’s important. Legal recognition creates a framework for upcoming improvements. It precludes the claim that electronic transmission is unlawful or unnecessary for Nigeria’s election system.

However, acknowledgment without coercion is not change. As long as electronic transmission is still optional, its effects would be more dependent on political will, which is frequently the most unpredictable factor in Nigerian elections, than on legislative authority. The reform’s credibility will depend on how consistently INEC implements it, how openly it explains deviations, and how resolutely it defies political pressure.

There are equally important legal ramifications. In election law, ambiguity usually travels directly to the courts rather than ending at the polling station. Together with the “network failure” allowance, the amendment’s non-mandatory wording is probably going to be a major point of contention in election petitions. tribunals may be required to decide whether reliance on manual collation was warranted, whether failure to send harmed results, and whether electronic transmission was reasonably achievable in particular locations.

The change could potentially increase post-election disputes rather than decrease them. The Senate’s reversal, however, also highlights a positive development: the growing power of popular pressure in Nigeria’s democratic arena. Lawmakers were compelled to reconsider an unpopular decision due to public outcry, protests, and persistent campaigning. That is a democratic win in and of itself.

The issue is that piecemeal reform frequently delays actual change while giving the appearance of progress. Senators might have reduced political tensions by reaching a settlement without tackling the root cause of the election system’s lack of trust. For those who want reform, the worry is still present and legitimate: half-measures won’t save Nigeria’s elections.

After all, the amendment is a step forward, but it’s a step forward measured in inches rather than steps. It is a reflection of a political system that finds it difficult to balance elite concerns about losing power with public demands for transparency.

The way INEC operationalizes the clause, how courts interpret its ambiguities, and how persistent public pressure continues will determine whether electronic transmission turns into a step toward truly credible elections or just a convenient compromise.

Electronic transmission is currently permitted in Nigeria’s voting system, but only as a guest and not as a standard. Additionally, the credibility crisis it was intended to address will not be resolved until it is become a regulation.