By Ore Ati-John

Nigeria’s electoral framework now stands at a pivotal moment as it transitions into a new digital phase.

With President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s assent on 18 February 2026 to the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026, the legal architecture governing the collation and transmission of election results has been fundamentally reshaped, setting the stage for a materially different electoral process in the 2027 general election.

Prior to this amendment, the transmission of results was entirely manual. After votes were counted at each polling unit, results were recorded on Form EC8A, signed by polling officials and party agents, and physically transported through multiple collation centres before final declaration. Although legally recognised, this process has long been criticised for its susceptibility to interference during the transmission process.

The central innovation, introduced under Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, is the inclusion of electronic transmission alongside the traditional paper-based process. In practice, once results are recorded on Form EC8A, the presiding officer is required to transmit them electronically to the server of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and upload them to the Result Viewing Portal (IReV).

However, the system is not without its limitations. This dual framework reflects a practical reality: network coverage in Nigeria remains uneven, particularly in rural and hard-to-reach areas. Accordingly, under this novel amendment, the law permits reliance on the manually completed and signed Form EC8A, which remains the primary legal record, where technical or network constraints prevent electronic transmission.

Retaining a manual fallback is therefore necessary. That said, the amendment does not clearly define what constitutes a ‘communication failure’ or how such a failure should be verified, leaving room for uncertainty and potential disputes.

Furthermore, other issues may also arise in practice. For instance, what happens where electronically transmitted results differ from those recorded on the physical Form EC8A? Does the Form EC8A take precedence? Or where there are unexplained delays in uploading results? Although the law appears to prioritise the physical form in cases of inconsistency, disputes may still centre on the integrity of both processes. Questions around server records, timestamps, and audit trails, particularly in cases involving alleged device malfunction, system compromise, or unauthorised access, are likely to become increasingly significant.

Another significant consequence of the amendment is its likely impact on election petition disputes. By introducing electronic transmission, the law effectively expands the scope of evidence that may be placed before the courts, adding a new layer of technical material to what has traditionally been a largely documentary process. While this has the potential to enhance transparency, it also introduces greater complexity.

Under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2023 (as amended), electronic evidence is admissible subject to certification and reliability requirements. In practice, this may involve forensic examination of INEC server logs, expert testimony on transmission processes, and detailed scrutiny of compliance with prescribed procedures. This shift is likely to make election petitions more technically demanding.

Ultimately, the amendment establishes a hybrid system in which both paper and electronic records coexist, but not on equal footing. At the level of voting, it introduces a more immediate and potentially transparent means of capturing and transmitting results, which may strengthen public confidence in the process. However, this increased transparency is accompanied by added complexity, particularly in the resolution of disputes.

The coexistence of parallel records creates new points of contest, while the introduction of electronic evidence is likely to make election petitions more technical and resource-intensive.

Its success will therefore depend less on the text of the law and more on its implementation, particularly the reliability of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s technology, the accessibility of evidence, and the approach adopted by the courts. In that sense, the reform may ultimately be judged not only by the transparency it promises, but by its ability to deliver certainty and credibility in practice.