A warning rooted in courtrooms, not protests
As political pressure mounts over amendments to the Electoral Act, one of Nigeria’s most prominent legal voices has shifted the debate from the streets to the courts. Olisa Agbakoba, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, says the controversy around electronic transmission is fundamentally a legal problem — not merely a political one.
In a public intervention on Monday, Agbakoba cautioned that unless electronic transmission is clearly embedded in statute, Nigeria risks repeating the same electoral disputes that have dogged its democracy for decades.
08112935565, 08161558757
When technology exists but the law hesitates
Agbakoba pointed to the 2023 general election, where the Independent National Electoral Commission deployed the Result Viewing Portal (IReV) to upload polling-unit results. While the platform improved transparency, it failed to carry legal weight in court.
The Supreme Court later ruled that because electronic transmission was contained only in INEC regulations and not explicitly provided for in the Electoral Act, the IReV uploads could not be treated as binding evidence in election petitions.
The burden no petitioner can realistically carry
According to Agbakoba, the court’s position exposes a structural flaw. Without statutory backing for electronic transmission, election petitioners remain saddled with an almost impossible evidentiary burden.
He recalled late Justice Pat Acholonu’s observation in Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005), where the jurist questioned whether any petitioner could practically challenge a presidential election, given the need to call witnesses from tens of thousands of polling units nationwide within limited constitutional timelines.
Why history keeps repeating itself
Agbakoba noted that no presidential election petition has succeeded since 1999, not necessarily because elections are flawless, but because the legal architecture makes verification at scale unworkable.
He argued that repeated amendments to the Electoral Act have failed to address this core weakness, leaving courts to determine outcomes long after votes are cast and, in many cases, after winners have nearly completed their terms.
Lessons from June 12
Drawing a historical parallel, Agbakoba cited the June 12, 1993 presidential election as Nigeria’s benchmark for credibility. That election, he said, earned legitimacy not through advanced technology, but through transparent processes that allowed voters and observers to verify results openly at polling units.
In his view, real-time electronic transmission could replicate — and enhance — that transparency in today’s digital environment by combining immediate verification with secure, tamper-resistant records.
The narrowing legislative window
Agbakoba described the ongoing harmonisation of the Electoral Act by the National Assembly as a critical opportunity. With February set as the target for presidential assent, he warned that lawmakers face a closing window to eliminate ambiguity and restore confidence before the next election cycle gathers momentum.
Failure to act decisively now, he said, could leave Nigeria heading into 2027 with the same legal uncertainties that have repeatedly undermined public trust.
What the law will decide next
If electronic transmission remains discretionary without clear statutory force, courts are likely to continue sidelining digital evidence in election disputes. If lawmakers tighten the language, they risk binding the system to infrastructure that may not always perform reliably.
Either choice carries consequence. But Agbakoba’s warning is clear: avoiding the decision altogether may prove the most damaging outcome of all.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.