When Technology Becomes a Scapegoat: How Nigeria’s Political Elite Weaponized Fear to Block Electronic Transmission of Votes
In the weeks leading up to Nigeria’s general elections, a particular video began circulating aggressively across social media platforms—WhatsApp, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and political blogs. Almost immediately, supporters of the ruling political establishment seized upon the clip as “evidence” to justify a long-standing resistance within the Nigerian Senate against the complete electronic transmission of election results.
According to the narrative pushed by these government-aligned voices, the video allegedly exposes a secret plot by foreign-based “tech gurus” in the United States, Canada, and other parts of the diaspora, who were supposedly planning to use technology to rig the election in favor of Labour Party’s presidential candidate, Peter Obi.
This claim has since been repeated endlessly, stripped of nuance, weaponized emotionally, and deployed as a rhetorical shield to defend one of the most controversial legislative decisions in Nigeria’s democratic history: the deliberate insertion of a manual transmission clause into the Electoral Act.
But when examined carefully—factually, logically, and contextually—this argument collapses under its own weight.
What Was Actually Said in the Video
The video in question contains a discussion centered on technology, youth engagement, innovation, and modern campaign strategy. The speakers referenced Nigerians in Lagos, Canada, and the United States who were willing to support a political movement not primarily with money, but with ideas, tools, and digital solutions.
Key statements from the video include:
References to diaspora professionals offering technological support.
A call to think beyond traditional campaigning and engage young voters through technology.
A clear emphasis on innovation, communication tools, and digital engagement—not election manipulation.
Nowhere in the conversation was there a mention of hacking election servers, altering vote counts, breaching INEC systems, or bypassing electoral safeguards. Yet, through deliberate misrepresentation, this discussion has been reframed to suggest an intention to rig elections.
This distortion is not accidental. It is political.
Does “Using Technology” Automatically Mean Rigging?
This is the central logical flaw in the argument pushed by opponents of electronic transmission.
Technology is not a criminal tool by default. It is neutral. Its morality is defined by how it is used and who controls it.
If using technology equals rigging, then Nigeria itself must explain:
Why BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) was introduced.
Why voter accreditation is now biometric.
Why INEC has invested billions in digital infrastructure.
Why results are uploaded to an online portal at all.
Globally, technology has become the backbone of electoral transparency, not fraud.
Countries like:
India
Brazil
Estonia
Ghana
Kenya
South Africa
all rely heavily on electronic systems for voter registration, accreditation, transmission, or collation. None of these democracies argue that technology itself is evidence of rigging. Instead, they argue the opposite: that technology reduces human interference, minimizes ballot stuffing, and creates traceable audit trails.
The Real Fear: Technology Removes Human Manipulation
The resistance to electronic transmission is not rooted in national security or electoral integrity. It is rooted in loss of control.
Manual collation systems thrive on:
Human discretion
Physical interception
Result alteration during movement
Intimidation at collation centers
Delays that allow “corrections”
Electronic transmission eliminates most of these vulnerabilities.
Once results are transmitted directly from polling units:
Figures are time-stamped
Originals are preserved digitally
Alterations become traceable
Real-time verification becomes possible
This is precisely why technology is feared—not because it enables rigging, but because it makes rigging harder.
The Senate’s Manual Clause: A Backdoor for Manipulation
The Nigerian Senate’s insistence on inserting a clause that allows manual transmission as an equal alternative to electronic transmission is one of the most troubling developments in Nigeria’s democratic process.
A manual process should exist only as a backup, not as a parallel option.
International best practices are clear:
Manual records exist to verify electronic results.
They serve as evidence in cases of disputes.
They are not meant to override digital data arbitrarily.
By making manual transmission a primary or optional route, the Senate effectively reopens the door to:
Result rewriting
Discretionary overrides
Inconsistent collation standards
Selective application of rules
This is not about redundancy. It is about retaining loopholes.
Weaponizing Fear of Peter Obi and Youth Politics
It is also impossible to separate this debate from the broader political anxiety surrounding Peter Obi’s candidacy and the unprecedented youth mobilization that accompanied it.
For the first time in Nigeria’s recent history:
Young voters organized independently.
Campaigns relied heavily on social media and data.
Fundraising occurred transparently and digitally.
Diaspora Nigerians became actively engaged.
To an old political order built on patronage, cash distribution, and opaque processes, this was deeply unsettling.
Rather than adapt, the establishment chose to demonize technology, framing it as a foreign conspiracy rather than a democratic evolution.
Electronic Transmission Is Not Optional in a Modern Democracy
Elections are not rituals; they are systems.
A system that relies on discretion rather than verification is vulnerable by design.
Electronic transmission:
Protects votes at the source
Reduces logistical manipulation
Strengthens public trust
Aligns Nigeria with global democratic standards
Claiming that foreign-based Nigerians offering tech support is evidence of rigging ignores one critical fact: INEC controls the election infrastructure, not political parties.
No private individual can upload results into INEC’s backend system unless the system itself is compromised. And if the system is that fragile, then the problem is not technology—it is governance.
The Bigger Question Nigerians Must Ask
If technology is unsafe, why deploy it selectively?
If electronic transmission can be rigged, why allow it at all?
If manual processes are safer, why has every major reform since 2015 pushed Nigeria toward digitization?
The answer is uncomfortable but clear: selective application of technology creates room for selective outcomes.
Conclusion: Transparency Should Never Be Negotiable
The debate around electronic transmission of votes is not about Peter Obi, Tinubu, Atiku, or any single candidate. It is about whether Nigeria is serious about credible elections.
Technology should not be demonized to protect political convenience.
Manual processes should not be elevated to preserve manipulation.
Electronic transmission should be the standard, with manual records serving strictly as backup evidence—not as an escape route.
In any democracy that claims to value the will of the people, transparency is not optional, and fear should never dictate electoral law.
Nigeria must decide: progress or perpetual suspicion.
0 Comments