Why the Senate’s E‑Transmission ‘Backup’ Clause Is a Scam: The Case for Ending Manual Collation in Nigeria’s Electoral Reforms
Nigeria’s democracy stands at a crucial crossroads. As the 2027 general elections approach, the country’s legislative battles over the electronic transmission of election results have reignited a national debate about transparency, credibility, and whether Nigerians can finally trust that their votes will count.
At the center of this debate is a phrase that has sparked outrage, protests, and political tension:
“If electronic transmission fails due to network issues, the manual result sheet will be adopted.”
This provision — now part of the Senate’s version of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 2026 — treats manual collation as the backup to electronic result uploads. For many Nigerians, that phrase is not just problematic — it is a scam that threatens the very foundation of electoral transparency. In this post, we unpack why this clause must be rejected outright, what it means for Nigeria’s democracy, and how the ongoing national debate reflects deep distrust in how elections have been handled historically.
What the Senate Actually Said
At a special session, Nigeria’s Senate approved the electronic transmission of election results as part of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2026. This was widely publicized as progress toward modernising the electoral system ahead of the 2027 elections.
However, buried in the language of the legislation is a condition that has alarmed civil society groups, opposition figures, labour unions, and a large segment of the voting public:
> “If electronic transmission fails due to network issues, the manual result sheet will be adopted.”
This means that electronic transmission is not a mandatory and exclusive method for uploading polling unit results. Instead, manual collation — using the traditional Form EC8A — will still serve as the deciding source when communication problems occur.
At first glance, this might sound practical: after all, Nigeria still faces infrastructural challenges in many rural and urban areas. But here’s the critical issue: network failure is subjective, unverifiable, and open to manipulation. If the law allows manual collation to trump electronic uploads whenever a connection issue is declared, that opens a legal and procedural loophole that can be, and likely will be, exploited.
Why Many Nigerians Call This a Scam
Across Nigeria, this clause has been met with outrage and public protests — including demonstrations at the National Assembly led by major political figures such as Peter Obi, civil society groups, and other activists.
1. Manual Collation Has Been Used to Manipulate Elections Before
The historical context makes many citizens sceptical. In the 2023 general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) deployed the BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) and the IReV (INEC Result Viewing Portal) to transmit polling unit results. But without a clear legal mandate that electronic uploads be the only source for collated results, manual collation was still decisive. This led to complaints, legal challenges, and mistrust about discrepancies between what voters saw at polling units and what results were officially declared.
Critics argue that if manual results remain legally authoritative whenever “network issues” arise, this effectively preserves the old system — where collated figures at central locations were far more susceptible to tampering out of public view.
2. “Network Failure” Becomes a Legal Loophole
The Senate’s language effectively makes electronic transmission optional. If a presiding officer says there was a network failure (which cannot be independently verified in real time by the public), then the hand‑written manual sheet becomes the legal basis for result collation. This has two major consequences:
1. It incentivises officials to claim “network issues” whenever results are unfavourable to powerful actors.
2. It preserves the very opacity the reform was meant to eliminate.
This is why civil society groups — including the Nigeria Labour Congress and the Nigerian Guild of Editors — are demanding that electronic transmission be made mandatory and exclusive, not just primary with a manual fallback.
Public Outrage and Nationwide Protests
The controversy has transcended typical legislative debate. Almost immediately after the Senate’s decision was announced, protests erupted in Abuja and other cities. Demonstrators carried placards, chanted slogans for transparent elections, and specifically called for the phrase “real‑time electronic transmission” to be restored in the law.
Prominent voices joined in. Former presidential candidate Peter Obi led a group of activists to the National Assembly gates, reiterating that real‑time uploads are essential to trust in Nigeria’s electoral outcomes.
Labour unions, including the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), also threatened direct action, including potential election boycotts if the clause remains ambiguous. Their argument is simple: if results can still be collated manually, then electoral fraud remains possible under the new framework.
Expert and Civil Society Perspectives
Across opinion pieces, editorials, and advocacy statements, key arguments converge on one point: Nigeria cannot afford to maintain a fallback that reintroduces old vulnerabilities.
Commentators have underscored that electronic transmission — especially real‑time as results are generated at polling units — is a constitutional imperative to uphold the people’s sovereignty and curtail manipulation. Without abolishing manual collation as a decisive method, the country could see a repeat of 2023‑style problems where the public perception of election transparency was eroded.
The Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) has publicly stated that mandatory electronic transmission is essential to refreshing public confidence in elections and aligning Nigeria with international standards of electoral transparency.
Why Manual Collation Still Persists
Some lawmakers defending the compromise claim the existing infrastructure in parts of Nigeria does not support reliable real‑time data uploads. They argue that a fallback option is a practical safeguard — should polling unit officials genuinely be unable to transmit data electronically due to network or electricity issues.
But this argument fails to address several critical points:
INEC has successfully piloted electronic uploads in past elections using the BVAS and IReV systems, proving deployment is possible even in remote areas.
Network issues can be exploited intentionally, especially if manual sheets become the authoritative source at dispute time.
Public trust requires clarity and enforceability in the law, not discretionary fallback clauses.
When the law allows ambiguity, it doesn’t solve the problem — it merely shifts the battleground to the courtroom and political contestation after the fact.
What This Means for 2027
With the 2027 elections looming, the controversy over Clause 60(3) of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill is more than a legislative quarrel — it’s a test of Nigeria’s commitment to electoral reforms that reflect democratic demands.
If the final version of the Electoral Act continues to permit manual collation as a fallback, many Nigerians fear the 2027 polls could suffer the same fate as previous elections: widespread suspicion, post‑election petitions, and loss of faith in democratic institutions.
On the other hand, enshrining mandatory, real‑time electronic transmission without manual override could mark a historic turning point — signaling to citizens and observers alike that Nigeria is serious about ensuring that every vote is counted and protected at its source.
Why Nigerians Must Reject the ‘Scam Clause’
The controversy boils down to one essential truth: as long as manual collation remains a decisive fallback in law, electronic transmission is not truly mandatory — it is optional in practice.
And in Nigeria’s electoral history, optional safeguards have always failed to protect the voter’s will. From disputed results to lengthy tribunal cases, manual collation has repeatedly been identified as a loophole that undermines transparency and credibility.
Nigerians are right to be sceptical. Allowing lawmakers to cling to manual collation undercuts one of the most important reforms — and gives political actors an easy excuse to justify reverting to the old, opaque system of result transmission.
What is needed — and what Nigerians are demanding — is simple but profound:
✔ Electronic transmission must be the only method permitted by law.
✔ Manual collation should not replace electronic uploads under any circumstances.
✔ Results should be transmitted in real time, immediately after Form EC8A is signed.
Only such a framework will significantly reduce opportunities for manipulation, align Nigeria with global best practices, and truly make every vote count in 2027.
Conclusion
The Senate may claim that its compromise protects against technical failures. But in doing so, it preserves a system that history has shown is susceptible to abuse. Protecting democracy requires bold action, not half‑measures. And Nigerians are increasingly united in the belief that manual collation cannot be the backup for electronic transmission — it must be eliminated as a fallback entirely.
As protests grow, civic advocacy intensifies, and public pressure mounts, the final shape of Nigeria’s electoral law will determine whether the 2027 general elections become a turning point or simply repeat the frustrations of the past.
Nigerians must reject this scam clause — and demand reforms that respect the will of the people at the source of every election: the polling unit.
0 Comments