Iyobosa Uwugiaren examines the danger in the current debate over the Electoral Act amendments ahead of 2027 general elections.
Despite the heavy presence of security personnel yesterday, Nigerians sent a clear and powerful political message to the Senator Godswill Akpabio-led National Assembly: pass the key provisions of the widely supported Electoral Act amendments or risk further weakening the nation’s democracy.
For many of those who participated in the protest yesterday at the entrance leading to the National Assembly, Abuja— from activists, members of the civil society groups and seasoned political figures, including Peter Obi, the protest was not just symbolic. It echoed unfathomable frustration with perceived legislative indolence or resistance, which Akpabio-led National Assembly has consistently represent, toward reforms widely seen as crucial to defend the nation’s future elections.
The protest also accentuated a wide-ranging anxiety: that legislative decisions driven by selfish political calculation rather than public interest can erode trust in democratic institutions and weaken the fundamentals of electoral credibility.
By refusing to pass significant provisions of a widely supported Electoral Act amendment, Akpabio and his gang may be pushing the country toward a dangerous democratic precipice. Against the slow-thinking by some legislators at the National Assembly, at stake is not merely a piece of legislation, but the credibility of future elections and the brittle trust Nigerians still place in elections, due to their past ugly experiences.
In a decent society, elections are the heartbeat of any democracy. When there are free, fair, and credible elections, citizens accept outcomes—even when they lose. But when elections are flawed, disputed, or impervious, the costs are often instability, litigation, voter apathy, and, in extreme cases, violence. Go back to history, Nigeria’s electoral process embarrassingly exemplifies this reality. Obviously, that is why electoral reform has steadily remained a central national demand for years.
This is why the refusal of the Akpabio-led National Assembly to adopt popular electoral reforms—particularly the mandatory electronic transmission of results—has raised serious concerns about the direction of Nigeria’s democracy in the past few weeks.
Nigeria’s elections have long been characterised by allegations of vote buying, result manipulation, violence, and disputed collation processes-the 2025 cases are shining examples. While the introduction of technologies such as the BVAS has marked progress in recent elections in the country, debates surrounding result transmission and collation has wind-swept public confidence.
The message from these experiences is clear: reforms must not stop halfway. Technology without legal unavoidable conclusion is brittle. Progress without enforceable safeguards is reversible.
The Nigerian Guild of Editors-professional group of editors in Nigeria, political observers, civil society advocacy, opposition parties, and even many election experts within the electoral system have time after time underscored the need for a stronger Electoral Act—one that closes loopholes rather than preserves them. Yet, for seeming selfish political calculations, the All Progressive’s Congress (APC) dominated National Assembly has chosen delay, dilution, and discretion over clarity and commitment.
At the centre of the current controversy is the refusal by the two chambers of the National Assembly to make electronic transmission of election results mandatory. Many political observers are of the view that this is not a technical debate; but a democratic one.
The sound reasoning is that result manipulation in elections rarely occurs at the polling unit, where party agents and observers are present; but thrives in the shadows between polling units and collation centres. The near consensus is that mandatory real-time electronic transmission would drastically reduce this exposure by ensuring that results entered at the polling unit are immediately visible, verifiable, and may be difficult to alter.
Leaving this critical safety measure to the pleasure of the Independent National Electoral Commission—no matter how well intentioned—creates indecision. Like the popular saying: laws are meant to bind institutions, not merely advise them. Democracy thrives on rules, not goodwill.
There is no need foot-dragging on the issue. Time is another silent threat. Electoral Acts passed too close to elections create confusion, limit preparation, and swell the likelihood of operative failures and legal disputes. The electoral commission requires certainty well ahead of elections to plan logistics, train staff, test systems, and educate voters.
With the current attitudes of the National Assembly- delaying or weakening reforms, the legislative arm of government is effectually compressing the preparation window and increasing the risk of disorder. This is not a middle-of-the-road act; it is one with foreseeable consequences.
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of the National Assembly’s position is the erosion of public trust. Nigerians are already skeptical about politics. Many feel excluded from governance and doubtful that their votes truly count. When lawmakers reject reforms that enjoy broad public support, citizens are left to wonder whose interests are being protected. Democracy cannot survive where suspicion replaces confidence and cynicism replaces participation. Low voter turnout, growing political apathy, and post-election unrest are not accidental—they are symptoms of a system people no longer believe in.
Some defenders, including the Senate President, of the current legislative position have argued that Nigeria faces infrastructural and technical challenges that make mandatory electronic transmission risky. While these concerns deserve consideration, they should not be used as excuses for inaction.
No reform is ever perfect at birth. Many countries around the world have faced similar challenges in modernising their electoral systems, yet they chose advancement over paralysis. The role of the lawmakers is to provide direction and standards, not to institutionalise fear of improvement. As political scientists would argue, democracy is not a favour granted by political elites; it is a fundamental right guaranteed to citizens. Electoral laws should reflect the will of the people, not the comfort of the lawmakers.
With the inaction by the National Assembly, the country currently stands at a crossroads: One path leads toward greater transparency, accountability, and public confidence. The other leads backward—toward disputed elections, endless litigation, and insubstantial legitimacy.
The Akpabio-led National Assembly must decide today-whether it wants to be remembered as a defender of democracy or as an obstacle to it. Passing a robust, people-centred Electoral Act is not just a legal commitment; it is a proper one. Elections that lack credibility weaken governance, fuel insecurity, and undermine national unity. No country can progress steadily when its leaders are persistently elected through processes many citizens doubt.
The solution is neither deep-seated nor impracticable. The National Assembly must revisit the Electoral Act amendment today-enshrine mandatory electronic transmission of results, close prevailing ambiguities, and provide INEC with a clear, enforceable legal framework—well ahead of the next general elections.
Nigeria’s democracy is too important to be surrendered on the altar of political convenience. The time to act is now. History will not be kind to those who saw the danger and chose silence.
