Explainer: The Senate, Electronic Result Transmission and Nigeria’s Latest Electoral Dispute

The Nigerian Senate has reversed its earlier position on electronic result transmission following an emergency plenary session held on Tuesday, February 10, 2026. In response to sustained public pressure, lawmakers re-amended the Electoral Act to accommodate the electronic transmission of election results. The new provision, however, does not make the process mandatory. Where internet connectivity fails, physical result sheets — INEC Form EC8A — will remain the primary basis for result collation.

This adjustment follows the Senate’s initial rejection of a proposal that would have required real-time electronic transmission during elections, a decision that reignited long-standing debates about transparency and trust in Nigeria’s electoral process after the 2023 general elections.

Why is Mandatory Transmission a Flashpoint?

The dispute centres on how election results move from polling units to collation centres. Under a mandatory real-time transmission framework, results recorded on Form EC8A after votes are counted would be uploaded directly from polling units to INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV). This would happen in the presence of voters, party agents, and observers, creating a public digital record before physical result sheets are transported.

Supporters argue that this step is critical because most electoral disputes in Nigeria arise not from voting itself, which is conducted openly, but during collation. To address this, INEC introduced the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the IReV portal ahead of the 2023 elections. Many voters expected these tools to provide real-time verification once results were declared at polling units. Instead, delays and inconsistent uploads became central issues in post-election litigation, exposing the limits of a system that was permitted by law but not explicitly required.

Public backlash and the path ahead

The Senate’s original decision to retain discretion for INEC, citing concerns around network coverage and operational flexibility, was met with sharp criticism. Civil society groups, labour unions, and legal bodies argued that discretion weakens accountability. Organisations such as Yiaga Africa pointed to court rulings suggesting that electronic transmission must be clearly stated in law to carry legal weight.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio maintained that electronic transmission was never removed from the Electoral Act, but critics countered that permission without obligation does little to restore public confidence. The disagreement also highlighted a legislative divide: while the Senate rejected mandatory transmission, the House of Representatives adopted it in 2025, forcing the need for harmonisation between both chambers.

As protests gathered at the National Assembly and pressure mounted from groups including the Nigerian Bar Association and the Nigeria Labour Congress, calls for reform intensified. Political figures such as Peter Obi, Solomon Dalung, and Rotimi Amaechi joined demonstrations demanding clearer safeguards ahead of the 2027 elections. It was against this backdrop that Akpabio announced the emergency plenary session.

The Senate’s decision to revisit the amendment represents a partial concession to that pressure. Yet by stopping short of making electronic transmission compulsory, the revised law leaves a familiar loophole in place. Electronic transmission is now more clearly recognised, but its use remains conditional — a compromise that continues to fuel debate about electoral credibility in Nigeria.