Elections run on trust the way banks run on liquidity. The moment confidence begins to drain, the entire system feels the tremor. Technical explanations cannot substitute for certainty, and procedural reassurances cannot repair shaken faith. That is why the proposed amendment to the Electoral Act 2022 is not routine legislative housekeeping. It is a credibility test ahead of 2027.

At the centre of the debate lies a simple but consequential question: should electronic transmission of election results be mandatory in real time, or left to the administrative discretion of the Independent National Electoral Commission?

One word defines the divide: mandatory.

The Legal Gap We Cannot Ignore

During the 2023 general elections, Nigeria deployed electoral technology with visible ambition. BVAS devices authenticated voters. Polling unit results were uploaded to public viewing portals. Citizens followed outcomes from their phones in near real time. It felt like progress.

But when disputes reached the courts, paper prevailed.

Why? Because the statute did not clearly elevate electronic transmission to primary evidentiary status. Physical result sheets remained legally superior. Digital uploads were supportive, not decisive.

Technology advanced. The law hesitated.

The amendment now before the National Assembly is meant to close that hesitation. The House of Representatives initially favoured explicit compulsion. Real time electronic transmission should not be optional. The Senate preferred flexibility. Electronic transmission is recognised, but not rigidly mandatory in real time. Manual forms remain legally sufficient where technology fails.

This difference is not semantic. It determines the hierarchy of proof.

Mandatory Creates Guardrails

In electoral systems, discretion is rarely neutral. It creates interpretative space. In a country where elections are litigated intensely, interpretative space quickly becomes contested territory.

If electronic transmission is mandatory, failure carries consequences. If it is discretionary, failure carries explanation. And explanations in Nigerian elections rarely calm nerves.

Every post election dispute eventually turns on evidence hierarchy. Which record prevails? Which document carries superior weight? If physical forms remain dominant, digital uploads remain secondary. If electronic transmission becomes legally primary, manipulation becomes harder.

Hierarchy determines outcome.

The amendment must therefore answer a direct question: Is Nigeria codifying digital evidence, or merely accommodating it?

The Connectivity Defence

Supporters of the Senate’s softer wording argue that Nigeria’s infrastructure is uneven. Rural communities experience network instability. Real time transmission nationwide may not always be feasible.

That argument has practical merit. Electoral law must reflect operational reality.

But realism must not become retreat.

Nigeria conducts nationwide digital banking across the same terrain. Telecommunications companies process millions of transactions daily. Sensitive financial data flows across forests, rivers, and highways without legislative dilution of standards.

Connectivity challenges are engineering problems. They demand redundancy planning, satellite backups, offline capture with timestamp verification, and structured fallback protocols. They do not justify legal ambiguity at the point of result transmission.

If transmission fails in a polling unit, the law can prescribe strict reporting requirements and mandatory delayed upload within defined timelines. Flexibility can exist without surrendering clarity.

Lowering transparency standards should not be the first option.

The Trust Variable

Public reaction to the Senate’s initial posture reveals accumulated scepticism. Citizens are not reading clauses as lawyers. They are reading intent.

Civil society groups and the Nigerian Bar Association have argued that ambiguity weakens electoral credibility. Whether one agrees with their tone or not, the underlying principle is straightforward: clarity reduces suspicion.

In democracies with fragile trust, precision is preventative medicine.

When legislative language shifts from obligation to discretion, voters hear caution. Some hear calculation. In politically charged environments, perception amplifies nuance.

The law must not only function. It must reassure.

Tactical Retreat or Balanced Reform?

Is the Senate’s position a tactical retreat from enforceable transparency, or a calibrated adjustment to infrastructure realities?

The answer depends on the final reconciled text. If the amendment clearly mandates electronic transmission, defines structured fallback mechanisms, assigns explicit evidentiary hierarchy, and imposes measurable sanctions for deliberate non transmission, it strengthens Nigeria’s electoral architecture.

If it leaves broad discretion without clear accountability, it risks recreating the legal ambiguities that fuelled dispute in the last cycle.

Electoral design should anticipate worst case scenarios. It should close avoidable gaps before campaigns intensify.

The Strategic Moment

The 2027 elections will unfold in an environment of heightened scrutiny. Ambiguous drafting today becomes litigation tomorrow. Litigation becomes instability.

This amendment presents an opportunity to reinforce guardrails early. It is a chance to reduce suspicion before pressure builds.

The debate is not about gadgets or bandwidth. It is about whether Nigeria codifies enforceable transparency or manages recurring ambiguity.

Elections do not collapse because of technology. They collapse because of disbelief.

Mandatory clarity strengthens confidence. Discretion expands uncertainty.

In electoral law, precision is protection.