Akindeji Aromaye is the Senior Media Associate of Enough is Enough (EiE), a civil society organisation (CSO) championing electoral reform and citizen engagement.

WHAT does the Senate’s decision to exclude mandatory electronic transmission represent for the upcoming polls?

The Senate’s decision represents a dangerous step backwards for Nigeria’s electoral integrity. After the 2023 elections exposed critical vulnerabilities, where the absence of mandatory real-time transmission led to widespread disputes, litigation, and erosion of public trust, Civil Society expected reforms that would close these gaps, not preserve them. By refusing to mandate electronic transmission, the Senate has effectively maintained the same loopholes that undermined the credibility of the last election cycle. This signals to Nigerians that, despite clear evidence of what went wrong in 2023, there is insufficient political will to implement the necessary safeguards. For the 2027 elections, this means we risk repeating the same controversies, disputes, and loss of confidence that characterised 2023, unless the Conference Committee reverses this retrogressive position.

Do you believe discretion is sufficient to guarantee transparency?

No, discretion is fundamentally insufficient to guarantee transparency. The entire purpose of electoral reform is to eliminate ambiguity and close avenues for manipulation. When critical transparency mechanisms are left to discretion, they become negotiable rather than guaranteed, and this has always been the problem. The 2023 experience taught us that discretionary provisions create room for selective application, inconsistency, and dispute. INEC may have good intentions, but a credible electoral system cannot depend on the goodwill of any institution or individual; it must be anchored in clear, mandatory legal requirements that cannot be circumvented. To state it clearly, transparency is not a favour to be granted at someone’s discretion; it is a democratic right that must be legally guaranteed. If we’ve learned anything from 2023, it’s that optional transparency is no transparency at all.

How persuasive is the argument that electronic transmission was “not removed, only left unchanged”?

This argument is deeply unpersuasive and, frankly, disingenuous. The entire purpose of this amendment process was to address the failures and gaps exposed in 2023. The Joint National Assembly Committees conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders precisely because everyone recognised that the status quo was inadequate. To now argue that leaving things “unchanged” is acceptable completely misses the point. If the 2022 framework was sufficient, why did we need amendments at all? Why did Civil Society and citizen groups protest? Why did stakeholders spend months and finances on consultations? The very existence of this amendment process is an admission that the current framework needs strengthening. Maintaining the status quo, given the mandate of this legislative exercise to strengthen electoral safeguards, effectively undermines the promised and expected reform. It’s a failure to act where action was desperately needed. The Senate President’s argument attempts to reframe legislative inaction as neutral when, in fact, it’s a deliberate choice to maintain a flawed system.

Do you have confidence in the Conference Committee to keep mandatory transmission in the final version?

Our confidence is cautious but contingent on sustained pressure and principled leadership. The Conference Committee has a clear choice: honour the extensive stakeholder consultations that produced progressive reforms, or capitulate to the Senate’s retrogressive position. The House of Representatives’ explicit approval of mandatory real-time transmission during its clause-by-clause consideration demonstrates legislative support for this reform. The question is whether the Conference Committee will demonstrate the statesmanship needed to protect this provision or whether political calculations will override democratic principles. We are not naive about the pressures and interests at play, but we believe that principled lawmakers still exist who understand what’s at stake for Nigeria’s democracy. Our role as Civil Society is to ensure they know that Nigerians are watching, that this is not a technical detail but a fundamental question of electoral credibility, and that history will judge their response in this moment. So yes, we have hope, but we’re also escalating public pressure to ensure that hope is justified.

How might the Senate’s version affect credibility and dispute resolution in the 2027 elections, given the Supreme Court’s position?

The Senate’s version essentially creates a perfect storm for an electoral crisis in 2027. The Supreme Court has already clarified that under the current framework, INEC is not legally bound to transmit results electronically. This means that if the Senate’s position prevails, we enter the 2027 elections with the same legal ambiguity that plagued 2023, except now, everyone will know it was a conscious choice. This has several dangerous implications. First, it guarantees pre-election litigation as parties and candidates challenge INEC’s transmission procedures before voting even begins. Second, it ensures post-election disputes will again centre on transmission failures, delays, or inconsistencies, the exact controversies that consumed 2023. Third, it further erodes public trust because citizens will rightfully question why reforms were promised but not delivered. When people lose faith in the process, they become more susceptible to manipulation, violence, and anti-democratic alternatives. Fourth, it gives legitimacy to those who claim the system is rigged and delegitimises the entire electoral process. When the law itself doesn’t mandate basic transparency measures that technology makes possible, it becomes harder to defend the process against accusations of deliberate opacity.

The credibility of 2027 Is being determined right now by these legislative choices. A discretionary framework invites disputes; a mandatory framework prevents them.

What options remain for civil society? Continued engagement or public pressure?

Both, simultaneously and strategically. This is not an either-or situation; effective advocacy requires multiple approaches working in concert. We will maintain direct engagement with the Conference Committee members by providing technical briefs explaining why mandatory transmission is essential, sharing comparative evidence from other democracies, and offering legal and operational arguments. Some lawmakers genuinely want to do the right thing but need support to navigate political pressures. We will intensify public mobilisation to ensure Nigerians understand the stakes. This includes media campaigns — citizens have started engaging and calling out their elected representatives at the National Assembly via shineyoureye.org, and we encourage others to do so ahead of this week’s committee sitting — coalition-building across civil society, and potentially peaceful protests. Lawmakers need to see and hear from constituents who care about electoral integrity.

The legislative process isn’t over until the President signs the bill. Every stage is an opportunity for correction, and we will use every tool available — persuasion, pressure, publicity, and persistence — to ensure the final Electoral Act strengthens rather than weakens Nigerian democracy. This is too important to concede quietly. (Sunday Tribune)