Protect real-time election transmission

Real-time electronic transmission of election results is not a luxury to be dispensed with at convenience. It is a reform designed to deepen transparency, reduce human interference, and restore public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process. In a country where election credibility has repeatedly been questioned, innovations that strengthen trust should be protected, not diluted. Without […]

Real-time electronic transmission of election results is not a luxury to be dispensed with at convenience. It is a reform designed to deepen transparency, reduce human interference, and restore public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process. In a country where election credibility has repeatedly been questioned, innovations that strengthen trust should be protected, not diluted.

Without doubt, the country must plan for the future. Nation-building requires that we set aside the politics of winning elections by any means possible and instead build systems that endure. Electoral reform must be guided by integrity and national development, not by narrow calculations. Real-time transmission represents one such forward-looking reform.

It is against this backdrop that the controversy generated by the Senate’s handling of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill becomes both needless and troubling. That it required concerted pressure from Nigerians before the red chamber expedited action on the bill was itself embarrassing. Weeks after the House of Representatives retained real-time electronic transmission in its version of the amendment, the Senate removed the clause altogether. More disturbing was the manner in which a few of its leaders appeared to orchestrate what could best be described as a legislative ambush, stripping out the transmission provision before eventually bowing to public protests and reinstating it.

Even then, the reinstatement came with a caveat that undermines the entire reform. The provision now states that electronic transmission should occur only “where possible,” while manual result sheets remain the legally binding documents. This qualification already provides an excuse for non-deployment. It leaves room for discretion, ambiguity, and selective interpretation. In practical terms, it weakens the reform and risks rendering it cosmetic.

Looking for impossibilities and magnifying difficulties instead of consolidating gains does not serve the nation. The debate must be grounded in facts. As far back as 2022, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), in collaboration with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), conducted a nationwide survey of network coverage. The report indicated over 97 per cent 2G and 3G coverage across Nigeria. That assessment was relied upon to transmit polling unit results electronically to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) in more than 100 off-cycle elections, including five governorship elections conducted before the 2023 general election.

Real-time transmission was also deployed during the 2023 governorship and State House of Assembly elections, as well as in subsequent off-cycle polls. What Nigerians should now be discussing is how to improve the system, address isolated technical issues, and strengthen safeguards—not whether there is network coverage in a village in Borno, Sokoto, Benue, Oyo, Akwa Ibom, or Ebonyi. If there are isolated connectivity challenges, targeted technical solutions can be devised. That cannot justify weakening a national reform.

For this reason, many Nigerians still find it difficult to accept the explanation that a glitch prevented the real-time transmission of presidential and National Assembly results in 2023. Network concerns are largely overstated and, in this context, specious. Notably, neither INEC nor the NCC raised an alarm over network inadequacy during public hearings on the amendment bill. It is, therefore, surprising that the argument about network coverage resurfaced primarily from the Senate leadership.

Public confidence in elections is foundational to democratic stability. Democratic stability, in turn, is contingent on the confidence citizens have in their leaders. Without doubt, Nigerians know that if the government is determined to make real-time transmission work, it will succeed. When public officials introduce ambiguities into reforms intended to guarantee transparency, suspicion inevitably grows.

The Senate leadership and all those complicit in inserting the restrictive caveat must recognise that Nigerians are not oblivious to what is at stake. Many perceive the qualification as an attempt to preserve the status quo for a few at the expense of national development. Such thinking is retrogressive and must stop. Electoral reforms are not meant to protect vested interests but to safeguard the will of the people.

At Daily Trust, we believe that if this issue is left unaddressed, the consequences could be severe. An election widely perceived as compromised will deepen distrust, heighten tensions, and create openings for instability. Senators must be warned that their disposition risks creating a window for chaos. Nigerians will pay dearly if the next general election is not adjudged free and fair because of avoidable controversies surrounding the transmission of results.

Recent remarks by the President’s media adviser suggesting that the president would decide whether real-time electronic transmission will be adopted have further fuelled concern. The comment has reinforced public belief that the Senate felt emboldened to take its restrictive position because it assumed the presidency was not fully committed to real-time transmission. The presidency must, therefore, state its position plainly. Nigerians expect nothing short of unequivocal support for real-time electronic transmission of results in the 2027 general election and beyond.

Experts have consistently affirmed that electronic transmission is feasible so long as there is political will. The issue before the nation is not a technical impossibility but a question of political commitment. Transparency in elections should not be conditional.

We therefore call on the harmonisation committee reconciling the Senate and House versions of the amendment bill to recognise the enormity of its responsibility. Its members must understand the weight of their assignment. They stand on the edge of history. The caveat must be removed and the provision restored to its original intent: real-time transmission of results without equivocation.

Members of this committee must acknowledge that history will remember whatever choice they make. Therefore, they must stand firmly on the side of the people and strengthen, rather than weaken, Nigeria’s democratic process.