A Legal Analysis of Nigeria Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2026

By: CHINAGOROM KINGSLEY ANYANWU  &  IFEANYICHUKWU OGBODO

ABSTRACT

The integrity of the Nigerian electoral process has historically been undermined by the vulnerabilities of manual result collation. The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 seeks to address these systemic failures by mandating real-time electronic transmission of results. This article examines the legal tension between legislative mandates and the institutional independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).  The authors have employed a doctrinal legal research method which incorporates both primary and secondary sources of law and legal materials. The article looks briefly at the Electoral Act 2022 and examines the innovative provisions of the Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2026. The Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2026 has introduced notable innovations of which was silent in the Electoral Act 2022. The idea of electronic and manual transmission of election result is set to be enacted into law, but the question is whether this is a step in the right direction, having recourse to international best practices? However, the outcome of the 2027 general elections would confirm the propriety or otherwise. This paper has made salient recommendations which would guide in the enactment of the Electoral Amendment Act 2026. By analysing recent case law, constitutional provisions, and stakeholder perspectives, the paper concludes that while technology is a necessary catalyst for transparency, its legal efficacy remains tied to the elimination of discretionary fallback loopholes.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria’s democratic journey has reached a critical juncture. Following the contentious 2023 general elections, where the failure to upload presidential results in real-time to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal sparked widespread litigation, the National Assembly has moved to repeal and re-enact aspects of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 is the byproduct of a fierce national debate between proponents of absolute digital transparency and those wary of Nigeria’s infrastructural limitations.[1] As the country approaches the 2027 polls, the legal weight of a digital receipt for every vote has become the central focus of reform. In light of the foregoing, the fundamental question that begs for an answer is what are the modalities towards the use of the electronic or manual transmission of the election results? Who are the ones to decide whether the result would be transmitted electronically or manually, having recourse to the options given by the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, that it can be transmitted electronically or manually? Assuming the electorates have cast their votes and decided the result to be transmitted electronically, and there are network glitches, could INEC resort to manual collation of the result? Put differently, could INEC staff at the polling unit decide for the electorates the way in which the result could be transmitted? All these and more are the issues the National Assembly should ponder on before the bill becomes an Act, to avoid chaos and issues between the INEC and the electorate. Against this backdrop, this article considers the potency and inefficiency of the bill towards the Nigeria electoral process and further makes recommendations to that effect.

ELECTORAL ACT 2022

The 2023 General Elections were heralded as a digital revolution for Nigerian democracy. With the enactment of the Electoral Act, 2022,[2] and the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal, the public expectation was clear: election results would be transmitted electronically in real-time, leaving no room for the rugged, uncertain system of the past.

However, as the dust settled in the courtrooms, a different reality emerged. Nigerian courts, up to the Supreme Court, have consistently clarified that while technology is an integral part of our progress, its mandatory use for result transmission remains a legal myth under current laws.

THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

The core of the legal debate rests on Section 60(5) of the Electoral Act 2022.[3] It states that a presiding officer shall transfer results “in a manner as prescribed by the Commission. The courts have interpreted this phrase as a grant of discretion rather than a strict mandate. The Supreme Court noted that while the National Assembly attempted to make technology a part of the process to enhance integrity, they deliberately provided for alternatives in case electronic systems failed.[4]

POSITION OF THE LAW ON ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION COLLATION/TRANSMISSION OF ELECTION RESULTS

In the wake of the 2023 Nigeria general elections, a profound legal question emerged: Did the promise of technology override the tradition of the paper trail? For many voters, the elections were framed by the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IRev). The human expectation was simple. I vote, the result is scanned, it goes to the cloud, and the result is instant and unchangeable.

However, as Justice Agim JSC noted in OYETOLA & ANOR v. INEC & ORS,[5] relying on the case of AGUEBOR & ANOR v. INEC & ORS[6] held that there is a significant legal distinction between a National Electronic Register (a post-election record) and a collation system (the live process). The courts clarified that while technology is a tool for transparency, it was never intended to replace the physical movement of results.

Furthermore, in ATIKU & ANOR v INEC & ORS,[7] the appellants argued that the failure to transmit results electronically was a fatal blow to the election’s integrity. The Supreme Court was however grounded in a literal interpretation of the Electoral Act 2022. The court highlighted that section 60(5) of the Electoral Act allows the presiding officer to transfer results in a manner as prescribed by the Commission. By using the word ‘prescribed’, the law gave INEC the human agency to decide how, rather than making a specific electronic method an absolute command.

Interestingly, the court reinforced that the primary evidence of an election remains the Form EC8A (i.e the physical result sheet signed by agents and police). Electronic transmission is a secondary verification tool, not the foundation of the result itself. In the same vein, the courts relied on regulation 48 and 93 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines and held thus:  

                                ‘Where there is no electronic transmission of results, the INEC

                                Regulations & Guidelines provide in Sub-Regulation (c) of

                                Regulation 48 that physical copies given to the police officer and

                                political party agents shall be relied on to verify the correctness of

                                the contents of the Presiding officer’s copy delivered for collation

relied on to collate the result. Since Regulations 48(b), (c), and 93 permit the use of copies of polling units results in  Form EC8A given to the Police Officers and agents of political parties to be used for verification or collation as the case  may be, where there is no electronic transmission or transfer of results, the failure to electronically transmit or transfer the polling unit results  could not have had any effect on the result of the election.’

Conversely, a recurring theme in these judgments is the human cost of technicalities. The appellants felt the lack of IRev uploads was a betrayal of the process. Yet, the Court (Per Justice Adamu Jauro) invoked a common-sense legal principle under section 135 (1) of the Electoral Act[8] and held as follows:[9]

                                ‘An election shall not be invalidated… if it was conducted substantially

                                in accordance with the principles of this Act and the non-compliance

                                did not affect the result.’

The judges essentially argued that even if the digital upload failed, if the physical votes were counted correctly in front of the people and the agents, the will of the people remain intact. To nullify an entire national election because a scan didn’t upload to a website would be, in the eyes of the court, a disproportionate response.

WHEN DOES ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ACTUALLY MATTER?

The judiciary has characterised Nigeria’s current framework as a hybrid system. Here is how the law distinguishes the two primary components.

1. The Collation System: This remains largely manual. Results are entered into Form EC8A, signed, and physically delivered to ward collation centres.
2. The IReV Portal: This is an operational tool designed for public transparency, allowing citizens to view results on election day, but it is not the primary basis for collation.

In Adeleke v. Oyetola,[10] the Court of Appeal reminded us that transmission is not instantaneous and can be hindered by human factors. Consequently, the physical Form EC8A remains the building block of election results.

Basically, if transmission isn’t mandatory for a valid result, why do we have it? The Supreme Court in IFEANYI v. INEC[11] explained that electronic results serve as a verification buffer. Thus, the apex court held as follows:

                                ‘By the clear provisions of the Regulations and the Guidelines,

                                Manual transfer/transmission of results has been positioned as

                                As an alternative by respondent presumably due to the unique

                                Challenges of electronic mode of transmission, and this is the

                                Only reasonable conclusion I am bound to reach. Therefore, it

                                Appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function

                                Under the thin disguise of interpreting the words used in section 60,

                                64 (4) and (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the relevant provisions

                                Of the Regulations and Guidelines to conclude that electronic

                                Transmission of results is mandatory under our laws as presently

                                Constituted.’

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL

The reform operates within a complex web of constitutional and statutory provisions. Under Section 153 and the Fourth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, INEC is an independent body.[12] Section 160(1) further empowers it to regulate its own procedure.[13] Previously, the courts interpreted this as giving INEC the absolute right to decide how to transmit results. The Electoral Reform Amendment Bill attempts to narrow this by defining procedure via statute, effectively mandating the how. The reform is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in ABUBAKAR v INEC.[14] In that case, the Court held that because the Electoral Act, 2022, used discretionary language INEC may transmit, the failure to upload results to the IReV did not invalidate the election. The Bill replaces may with shall, shifting the legal burden back to the Commission. Legal scholars argue that for the reform to succeed, the law must establish the Superiority of electronic records. If there is a discrepancy between a manual form and the electronic transmission, the electronic version must be the primary legal source.[15] The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has noted that the initial rejection of this clause by the Senate eroded public confidence and created room for avoidable disputes.[16]

Advantages of the Reform

The primary motivation for the 2026 reform is the restoration of public confidence through technological policing.

By requiring results to be transmitted directly from the Polling Unit (PU), the bill limits the opportunity for results to be altered during the physical transit to ward or local government collation centres. Mandatory electronic records provide hard evidence in election petitions, reducing the reliance on conflicting oral testimonies from polling agents. The mandatory use of the IReV portal allows citizens and observers to track results globally, creating a decentralised audit of the Commission’s data. 

Disadvantages of the Reform

Despite the promise of reform, several legal and technical hurdles persist. Critics argue that mandating electronic transmission in areas with poor 4G/5G coverage could lead to technical disenfranchisement if results are cancelled due to transmission failure.[17] Current drafts allow a return to manual collation if technology fails. Legally, this fallback often becomes the default, potentially rendering the electronic mandate toothless. A centralised electronic database is a prime target for hacking, which could paralyse the declaration of winners and trigger constitutional crises regarding handover dates.

CONCLUSION

The Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2026 represents a significant step toward a more transparent democracy. However, the legislative pivot from discretionary to mandatory transmission is only half the battle. For the reform to be meaningful, it must transform the IReV from a mere viewing portal into a legally binding source of truth. Without clear legal supremacy of digital data over manual forms, the fallback provisions will continue to provide a sanctuary for electoral malfeasance.

RECOMMENDATION

1. The National Assembly must ensure the final Harmonised Bill retains the word ‘shall’ regarding real-time transmission to remove INEC’s discretion.
2. Introduce a provision stating that in any conflict between a manual Form EC8A and the time-stamped electronic transmission from the BVAS, the electronic version shall be deemed the authentic record.
3. Amend the Act to include specific criminal penalties for presiding officers who deliberately bypass electronic transmission without a documented technical failure report.
4. Legally mandate INEC to publish a network coverage map six months before the election to identify areas where offline-to-online synchronisation will be utilised, ensuring transparency in blind spots.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes and Bills

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
• Electoral Act 2022.
• Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2026.
• INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022.

Cases

• Abubakar v INEC (2023) 19 NWLR (Pt 1917) 761 (SC).
• Adeleke v Oyetola (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt 1894) 71 (CA).
• Atiku Abubakar v INEC (2023) LPELR-61556 (SC).
• Ifeanyi v INEC (2024) 10 NWLR (Pt 1946) 243 (SC).
• Obi v INEC (2023) 19 NWLR (Pt 1917) 1 (PEPC).

Books

• Nwabueze B, ‘The Legal Dilemma of Electronic Voting in Nigeria’ (2024) 5(2) Nigerian Juridical Review 45.

Reports and Newspapers

• Eboh C and Anyaogu I, ‘Nigeria Senate backs real-time election result transmission after outcry’ (Reuters, 10 February 2026).
• Nigerian Bar Association, ‘Statement on the Integrity of the 2023 General Elections and Proposals for Reform’ (NBA Press, 2024).

---

[1]Camillus Eboh and Issac Anyaogu, ‘Nigeria Senate backs real-time election result transmission after outcry’ (Reuters, 10 February 2026) https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigeria-senate-backs-real-time-election-result-transmission-2026-02-10/ accessed 13 February 2026.

[2] Electoral Act 2022.

[3] Electoral Act 2022, s 60(5).

[4] ATIKU & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-61556(SC).

[5] (2023) LPELR-60392 (SC).

[6] (2023) LPELR-61331 (CA).

[7] (2023) LPELR-61556 (SC)

[8] Electoral Act 2022.

[9] Atiku & Anor v. Inec & Ors (2023) LPELR-61556 (SC).

[10](2023) 11 NWLR (PT. 1894) 71 C.A.

[11] (2024) 10 NWLR (PT. 1946) 243.

[12] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 153.

[13] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 160 (1).

[14] (2023) 19 NWLR (PT. 1917) 761 S.C

[15]Ben Nwabueze; The Legal Dilemma of Electronic Voting in Nigeria’ (2024) 5(2) Nigerian Juridical Review 45.

[16] Nigeria Bar Association, ‘Statement on the Integrity of the 2023 General Elections and Proposals for Reform’ (NBA Press, 2024) 12.

[17](2023) 11 NWLR (PT. 1894) 125 (SC).