NIGERIA’s democracy stands, once again, at a crossroads. As debates over electoral reforms resurface in the wake of recent elections, the issue of real-time transmission of election results has returned to the front burner. At the heart of the conversation is the Electoral Amendment Act and the pending question of whether the National Assembly will decisively and unequivocally stamp into law the mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results. This is not merely a legislative technicality. It is a defining moment that will shape the credibility of our elections, the trust of the electorate, and the future of participatory governance in Nigeria.
The evolution of Nigeria’s electoral framework has been long and turbulent. The passage of the Electoral Act 2022 was widely celebrated as a milestone reform. Among its progressive provisions were the introduction of technological innovations aimed at reducing fraud, enhancing transparency, and strengthening voter confidence.
One of the most transformative aspects of the reform was the deployment of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the Result Viewing Portal (IReV) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). These tools were designed to curb ballot stuffing, eliminate ghost voting, and, most crucially, facilitate the electronic transmission of polling unit results.
However, while the Act empowered INEC to deploy technology, it stopped short of making real-time electronic transmission of results mandatory in explicit, unequivocal terms. That gap has fueled ongoing legal battles, political disputes, and public skepticism. The National Assembly’s reluctance, or cautious approach depending on one’s perspective, to fully entrench real-time transmission as a compulsory feature of our electoral law has become a source of heated national debate.
Real-time electronic transmission of results means that once votes are counted at a polling unit, the results are uploaded instantly to a secure digital platform accessible to stakeholders and the public. This process minimizes human interference between the polling unit and collation centers. In Nigeria’s electoral history, it is often during this journey from polling units to collation centers that results become vulnerable to manipulation.
Allegations of result swapping, collation irregularities, and delayed announcements have repeatedly undermined public trust. By mandating real-time transmission, transparency is enhanced because citizens can independently verify results. Manipulation is reduced as the window for tampering narrows significantly. Litigation decreases since clear digital records strengthen evidentiary standards. Voter confidence grows because participation increases when trust is restored. Democracy thrives not merely on voting, but on belief in the integrity of the vote.
The National Assembly’s hesitation to decisively stamp real-time transmission into law has been defended on several grounds. Some lawmakers argue that infrastructural limitations, particularly poor network coverage in rural areas, could make mandatory real-time uploads impractical. Others cite cybersecurity concerns and the need for gradual adaptation. These concerns are not entirely unfounded.
Nigeria’s digital infrastructure remains uneven, and connectivity challenges in remote areas could delay uploads. Yet the argument that infrastructural gaps justify ambiguity in law is increasingly seen as insufficient. If anything, legislation should drive infrastructural improvement, not wait for perfection. Moreover, INEC itself has repeatedly demonstrated during off-cycle governorship elections and general elections that real-time uploads are technologically feasible in most parts of the country. The issue, therefore, is less about possibility and more about political will.
In democracies, perception can be as powerful as reality. Even when elections are largely credible, suspicion surrounding result transmission can erode legitimacy. A democracy weakened by distrust is vulnerable to apathy, unrest, and institutional decay. Young Nigerians in particular have shown renewed political engagement in recent years.
High voter registration figures among youth populations signal hope, yet this hope is fragile. When technological promises are perceived as inconsistently applied, the resulting disappointment deepens cynicism. If real-time transmission remains optional or ambiguously framed, it leaves room for discretion, and discretion in high-stakes electoral processes is often interpreted as opportunity for manipulation. The question then becomes whether the backbone of democracy should depend on discretion.
Another consequence of failing to explicitly mandate real-time transmission is the surge in post-election litigation. Courts become battlegrounds where technical compliance with electoral guidelines is contested. Judges are then forced to interpret legislative intent, evaluate technological failures, and determine whether deviations materially affected outcomes. This shifts the resolution of electoral legitimacy from the ballot to the bench. A clear statutory mandate would reduce ambiguity, define expectations, establish enforceable standards, and minimize room for interpretation.
Across Africa and beyond, electoral bodies are increasingly embracing technology to strengthen transparency. Countries such as Kenya and Ghana have experimented with electronic transmission systems with varying degrees of success. The lesson is clear that technology alone does not solve electoral disputes, but clarity of law combined with technological safeguards significantly improves credibility. Nigeria, as Africa’s largest democracy, cannot afford to lag behind. Our elections set a tone for democratic practice on the continent.
At its core, this debate transcends hardware and software. It is about power and accountability. It is about whether elected representatives are willing to subject the process that produces them to the highest possible standard of scrutiny. Mandating real-time transmission is not an attack on politicians. It is a protection for them. Leaders who emerge from transparent processes govern with stronger legitimacy and moral authority. Democracy is not weakened by transparency; it is fortified by it.
The National Assembly has an opportunity to write its name in bold letters in Nigeria’s democratic history. By unequivocally stamping real-time electronic transmission of results into the Electoral Amendment framework, lawmakers can close a trust gap that has lingered for decades.
However, legislation alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by investment in digital infrastructure nationwide, cybersecurity enhancements, independent auditing of electoral technologies, and continuous voter education. Civil society organizations, the media, and advocacy groups must sustain pressure for clarity and accountability. Citizens must also recognize that democracy is participatory, not passive.
Nigeria’s democratic journey has never been linear. It has been marked by progress, setbacks, resilience, and reform. The question before the National Assembly is simple yet profound. Will they codify transparency as a non-negotiable principle, or leave it to administrative discretion? History will remember this moment. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It is about making every vote count and ensuring every Nigerian can see that it does. The clock is ticking.
- West is a seasoned journalist and development practitioner with over a decade of experience in media, human rights advocacy, and NGO leadership. Her syndicated column, The Wednesday Lens, is published every Wednesday in News Point Nigeria newspaper. She can be reached at bomawest111@gmail.com.