If The 2027 Elections Are To Be Credible…II,By Bolanle BOLAWOLE
turnpot@gmail.com 0705 263 1058
“The defect lies in making manual recording or manual collation the automatic fallback without imposing strict safeguards. It also makes Form EC8A the primary basis for collation anddeclaration. That drafting dilutes the reform because the exception may swallow the rule. The amendment is further objectionable because it creates incentives for abuse. If failure of BVAS during accreditation attracts replacement, cancellation, or rescheduling, then failure of result transmission should not simply permit a return to manual recording without consequences… The amendment to Section 60 is regressive to the extent that it treats electronic transmission as optional in practice, even while appearing to recognise it in principle. It fails the test of legislative coherence because it imposes a strict technological standard for accreditation under Section 47 but adopts a relaxed manual fallback for result transmission under Section 60. A credible reform should harmonise both provisions by making technology central at both stages.”
Nominated for the position of INEC chairman by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 9 October, 2026 and confirmed by the Senate on 16 October, 2026, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan has had his litmus test in the few one-off elections he has so far presided over – but the outcome has not given any objective observer cause for cheers. The familiar demons that plagued previous elections have reared their ugly heads, though at a more tempered level, possibly because the elections were one-off. Vote-selling and vote-buying, election violence, voter apathy, late arrival and/or commencement of voting, malfunctioning of card readers-cum-network failure, compromised electoral officers, and contestation of election results are still very much with us. If one-off elections are thus still problematic, what should we expect in the 2027 General Elections that will not only cover the entire country but whose stakes are higher?
Our people say when you hear “it is coming…”, you don’t wait for it to arrive before starting to scratch your head or thinking of what to do about it. You prepare well ahead for it by spreading a net to catch it! It is the lame who is wise that does not perish in a war foretold because while those who can move faster than him are still taking their time, he quickly sets out to get out of harm’s way. “Igi gan-gan-ran ma gun mi l’oju, okeere l’a ti n wo.” Taking precaution is the name of the game. To be forewarned is to be forearmed!
That was the message I took away from the twin-event of book presentation and launch of an educational scholarship for indigent students by retired Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye in Abuja on Thursday, 2 July, 2026. Titled “An address at the public presentation of electronic evidence and a compendium of cases on electronic evidence, and the launch of the Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye educational foundation for indigent students”, the author, who is also a professor of Law at the National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, beamed his searchlight on the lacuna in the Electoral Act that can upend the desire for credible elections in Nigeria going forward. The National Assembly has amended the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria many times; so also the Electoral Act, but retired Justice Omolaye-Ajileye, the country’s leading authority on electronic evidence, insists there are still pitfalls that will render all such efforts a nullity if urgent remedial actions are not taken.
Justice Omolaye-Ajileye spoke at a gathering brimming with lawyers and judges, but I doubt if there were influential legislators there who could carry the message to the hallowed chambers of the National Assembly for the lawmakers to peruse the sections and provisions of the extant laws where Omolaye-Ajileye posited that the demons that can scuttle free and fair elections are still lurking.
What the law says
The section of his speech where he made his postulations was titled “COMMENTS ON ELECTORAL ACT, 2026”. It runs thus:
“47. (1) Any person intending to vote in an election shall present himself to a Presiding Officer for accreditation at the polling unit in the constituency in which his name is registered and shall provide a permanent voter’s card (PVC). (2) To vote, the Presiding Officer shall use a Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm, or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission. (3) Where a Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a fresh card reader or technological device is not deployed, the election in that unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours if the Commission is satisfied that the result of the election in that polling unit will substantially affect the final result of the whole election and declaration of a winner in the constituency concerned.
“60. (1) The Presiding Officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form prescribed by the Commission. (2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit. (3) The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal, and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or Counting of votes and forms countersigned by the candidates or Polling agents where available at the Polling Unit: Provided that if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit, the Form EC8Ashall at all times remain the primary source of collation and declaration of the result.”
Where the demons are hiding
That is what the law presently says; however, Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s objection, titled “Critique of the amendment to Section 60 of the Electoral Act”, runs thus:
“The amendment to Section 60 is legally and policy-wise unsatisfactory because it creates an internal inconsistency in the Electoral Act’s treatment of electoral technology. Under Section 47, technology is treated as indispensable to voter accreditation: the presiding officer must use a BVAS or other technological device to verify, confirm, or authenticate voters, and where the device fails after a fresh device is deployed, the election in that polling unit is liable to be cancelled and rescheduled within 24 hours where the result may substantially affect the outcome. By contrast, the amended approach to Section 60 permits a retreat to manual result management where electronic transmission fails. This creates a troubling double standard: technology is mandatory at the accreditation stage but dispensable at the result-transmission stage.
“The weakness of the amendment is not that it recognises the possibility of technological failure. Any realistic electoral law must anticipate network failure, device malfunction, or communicationbreakdown. The defect lies in making manual recording or manual collation the automatic fallback without imposing strict safeguards. It also makes Form EC8A the primary basis for collation and declaration. That drafting dilutes the reform because the exception may swallow the rule. The amendment is further objectionable because it creates incentives for abuse. If failure of BVAS during accreditation attracts replacement, cancellation, or rescheduling, then, failure of result transmission should not simply permit a return to manual recording without consequences. Otherwise, electoral actors may be encouraged to manufacture or exaggerate “communication failure” in contested polling units.
“A vague exception such as ‘communication failure’ or ‘impossibility’ is dangerous unless the law defines who determines the failure, how many transmission attempts must be made, how the failure must be documented, and whether objective technical evidence must be produced. A more coherent provision would require that, where electronic transmission fails, the presiding officer must immediately record the failure in a prescribed incident report, make repeated logged attempts, obtain confirmation from party agents and security officials where available, preserve the result electronically offline, and transmit the result at the nearest secure transmission point before collation or declaration. INEC should also be required to publish a list of polling units where transmission failed, with reasons and supporting technical logs.
“Without these safeguards, the amendment merely gives statutory cover to the very opacity that electronic transmission was intended to cure. In conclusion, the amendment to Section 60 is regressive to the extent that it treats electronic transmission as optional in practice, even while appearing to recognise it in principle. It fails the test of legislative coherence because it imposes a strict technological standard for accreditation under Section 47 but adopts a relaxed manual fallback for result transmission under Section 60. A credible reform should harmonise both provisions by making technology central at both stages, while allowing only a narrow, evidence-based, and auditable exception where transmission genuinely becomes impossible…
“I should be permitted to remark on the statement of the INEC Chairman, our own distinguished Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, which I read as I was rounding up the writing of this address. It is to the effect that it is no longer fashionable to snatch ballot boxes. I totally and absolutely agree with the erudite scholar. I will add that it is, indeed, ‘primitive’ to embark on such an archaic venture in this age of technology. But then, I will appeal to INEC to approach the matter with cautious optimism. I say this because I know of a fact that BIVAS machines were used in the 2023 elections; ‘primitive’ people still went about snatching ballot boxes. To me, the only way out is the enforcement of Section 47 and Section 51 of the Electoral Act, 2026 (which states that) where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the Presiding Officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit.
“Therefore, if a ‘primitive’ man in 2027 goes to snatch a ballot box and stuffs it with thumb-printed papers, he will come to meet Section 51 of the Electoral Act in court!”
MY COMMENTS: I know enough of my country to say emphatically that if you give many of my countrymen an inch, they will take a mile! If loopholes are left in our electoral laws, deliberately or inadvertently, such loopholes will be exploited to the hilt by some of our people!
Over to you, then, our National Assembly members!
Are senators, senators for life?
The Presidency has directed that “honoris causa” or honorary doctorate degree holders should no longer use the prefix “Dr.” Only academic Ph. D. holders are so entitled, according to an announcement made by the Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa.
I have no problems with that, but how do we know who is using the prefix legitimately? A friend suggested that the “authentic” doctorate degree holders should add “Ph.D.” after their name.
Fine, but are those with doctorate degrees awarded by religious organizations or institutions qualified to address themselves as “Dr.” or is the title now limited to those who get their own doctorate degrees from established universities? And who has a comprehensive list of such recognized institutions?
Going further afield, should politicians who once were senators but are no longer in the Senate still parade as senators and should ex-members of the House of Representatives/State House of Assembly still parade as “Honourables”? Should ex-governors/ex-presidents continue to be addressed as “Your Excellency” even out of office?
As they say, what is sauce for the goose…
Former editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-chief, BOLAWOLE was also the Managing Director/Editor-in-chief of The Westerner news magazine. He writes the ON THE LORD’S DAY column in the Sunday Tribune and TREASURES column in New Telegraph newspaper on Wednesdays. He is also a public affairs analyst on radio and television.
