Electoral Act: Senate Approves Electronic Transmission of Election Results

The Senate has approved the electronic transmission of election results to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Result Viewing Portal (IReV), while also allowing manual collation as a fallback in cases where technology fails.

The decision came after lawmakers revisited a contentious provision of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill during an emergency plenary session on Tuesday.

Although the upper chamber endorsed electronic transmission, it stopped short of making it mandatory and rejected a proposal for real-time uploading of results.

Under the amended section, presiding officers are required to electronically transmit polling unit results to the IReV portal once voting concludes and the prescribed documentation is completed.

However, the provision states that if electronic transmission cannot be carried out due to communication or network challenges, the manually completed result sheet, Form EC8A, will serve as the primary basis for collation and declaration of results.

While putting the amendment to a voice vote, Senate President Godswill Akpabio called on any senator opposed to the proposal to present a counter-motion. He clarified that the motion before the chamber sought to rescind an earlier decision on Section 60, Subsection 3 of the Electoral Act.

Reading the revised clause, Akpabio explained that presiding officers must electronically transmit results after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped, and countersigned by candidates or polling agents where available. He noted that the amendment also makes provisions for instances where agents may not be present.

He further stated that in the event of electronic transmission failure due to network or communication issues, the signed and stamped Form EC8A would become the authoritative document for result collation and declaration.

The amendment has drawn criticism from civil society groups and opposition stakeholders, who warn that allowing manual results to take precedence in certain circumstances could undermine transparency and open the door to possible manipulation, particularly in areas with limited network coverage.