Senate’s reversal of its decision on e-transmission of election result is the proper thing to do

Amidst public outcry, the Senate last week backed down on an earlier decision it took to subject the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conditionalities before it could use electronic transmission of results for elections. Among other clauses reviewed, the red chamber reversed itself on clause 52 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as Amended) by which it had required the electoral body to first secure clearance from the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and approval by the National Assembly (NASS) before deploying e-transmission for results collation. Its new stance is that INEC should be at liberty to decide on the use of e-voting and e-transfer of results. The Senate also amended clause 87 of the law to mandate political parties to hold only direct primaries in picking candidates seeking elective positions.

In its resolution on the Electoral Act amendment last July, the Senate had altered clause 52(2) as proposed by its Committee on INEC from “The commission may transmit results of elections by electronic means where and when practicable” to “The commission may consider electronic transmission provided the national network coverage is adjudged to be adequate and secure by the Nigerian Communications Commission and approved by the National Assembly.” This resolution elicited public outrage and accusations that the chamber aimed to thwart efforts by INEC to upscale the credibility of elections in the country. Besides, it ran at variance with the House of Representatives, which adopted the proposal leaving the initiative for e-transmission to the electoral body. A conference committee was recently jointly constituted by both chambers of NASS to harmonise the differences before the bill is forwarded for presidential assent.

But in a motion last Tuesday to recommit some clauses in the Electoral Act amendment bill to the Committee of the Whole, Senate Leader Abdullahi Yahaya asked that the chamber rescind its decision on the affected clause of the bill, saying after critical examination by the Committee on INEC, some fundamental issues that required fresh legislative action on clauses 43, 52, 63 and 87 were observed. He argued that there was need to address the observations by the committee and make necessary changes relying on Order 53(6) of the Senate Standing Order, which allows the chamber to reconsider substantive motions.

The clauses reviewed and amended by the red chamber last week now read:

43(1) – The commission shall provide suitable boxes, electronic voting machine or any other voting device for the conduct of elections.

43(2) – The forms to be used for the conduct of elections to the offices mentioned in this bill shall be determined by the commission.

43(3) – The polling agents shall be entitled to be present at the distribution of the election materials, electronic voting machine and voting devices from the office (of INEC) to the polling booth.

52(2) – Subject to section 63 of this bill, voting at an election and transmission of results under this bill shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the commission, which may include electronic voting.

Read ALso: NCC: we’re 97% ready for 5G deployment

63(5) – The presiding officer shall transfer the results, including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the commission.

87(1) – A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this bill shall hold direct primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which shall be monitored by the commission.

These amended clauses are to be sent back to the conference committee for harmonisation with the House of Representatives.

It is laudable that the Senate mustered the courage to eat the humble pie by reversing itself on e-transmission of results, with its earlier resolution being a nullity ab initio because it flew against constitutional provisions on the powers of INEC. Both sections 78 and 118 of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) stipulate that voter registration and conduct of elections shall be under the electoral agency’s control, while section 158(1) lists INEC among statutory bodies that “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person.” The combined effect of these provisions, added to Third Schedule, Part 1, Section F, Clause 15(a) of the same law is the independence of INEC in conducting polls, which the Senate ran against by subjecting the agency to NCC’s clearance and approval by NASS before it would be able to deploy e-transmission of results for elections.

The commission had at the time made clear it would “continue to implement the provisions of the Electoral Act to the extent of its consistency with the Constitution, (which) is the fundamental law of the land.”

Now that the Senate has backed down, the NASS should make haste with fine-tuning the amendment bill and send to the President for timely assent.

Update news