Senate reconsiders Electoral Act, endorses e-results with manual backup

The Senate has approved the electronic transmission of election results to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Result Viewing Portal (IReV), while allowing manual collation to serve as a backup in cases of technological failure.

The decision was reached on Tuesday during an emergency plenary, following a reconsideration of a disputed clause in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill. Despite endorsing e-transmission, the upper chamber declined to make it compulsory and also rejected provisions for real-time upload of results.

Under the revised section, presiding officers at polling units are required to electronically transmit results to the IReV portal after voting, counting, and documentation are concluded.

However, where electronic transmission is not possible due to network or communication challenges, the manually completed result sheet, Form EC8A, will become the primary basis for collation and declaration.

While putting the motion to a voice vote, Senate President Godswill Akpabio urged senators opposed to the amendment to formally challenge it.

“It’s very simple. If you disagree with him, move your counter motion. So, if you agree with him, you agree with me when I put the votes,” Akpabio said.

He explained that the motion sought to reverse an earlier Senate decision on Section 60, Subsection 3 of the Electoral Act. Reading the amended clause, Akpabio stated that results must be electronically transmitted after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the presiding officer and countersigned by candidates or polling agents where available.

He added that the amendment takes into account situations where electronic transmission becomes impossible.

“Provided that if the electronic transmission of the results fails as a result of communication failure — maybe network or otherwise — the Form EC8A shall in such a case be the primary source of collation and declaration of results,” he said.

The amendment has continued to attract criticism from civil society organisations and opposition figures, who argue that allowing manual results to override electronically transmitted ones could weaken transparency and create opportunities for manipulation, particularly in areas with poor network coverage.