By Nigerian Discourse Editorial Board
Nigeria’s electoral debates often spike after every major election cycle. This time, the conversation centers on electronic transmission of results — whether real-time uploads should be mandatory, delayed, or even trusted.
Yet beneath the noise lies a structural reality: Nigeria’s election integrity framework does not rest on a single technological feature. It is layered. Understanding where each layer sits is essential before deciding whether one mechanism alone can guarantee credibility.
This analysis examines the roles of accreditation technology, physical collation, party oversight, and digital transparency within the system designed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The Architecture of Nigeria’s Voting System
Nigeria’s presidential election process unfolds in six major phases:
1. Pre-Election Registration
Only registered voters with valid Permanent Voter’s Cards (PVCs) can vote. Voting is restricted strictly to one’s assigned polling unit.
2. Polling Unit Setup
Polling units open at 8:30 am and close at 2:30 pm (voters in queue before closing must still vote). Officials set up ballot boxes, voting cubicles, registers, and electronic devices.
3. Accreditation — The BVAS Phase
Accreditation is conducted using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS):
This stage ensures that only legitimate voters cast ballots. Under Nigeria’s Electoral Act, BVAS accreditation is a legal requirement.
4. Voting
Accredited voters receive stamped ballot papers, vote in secret, and deposit ballots in sealed boxes.
5. Public Counting at Polling Unit
Votes are counted openly.
Results are recorded on Form EC8A.
Party agents sign the result sheet and receive copies.
This is crucial: party agents physically leave the polling unit with signed result sheets.
6. Upload and Collation
The Controversy: Electronic Transmission of Results
At the heart of current political tension is the question:
Should election results be transmitted electronically in real time — and should that transmission be legally binding?
Supporters argue that electronic transmission:
Critics argue:
But the debate often misses a more fundamental point.
What is the way forward for Nigeria Internal Security Challenges
priorities, including energy and environmental pri0rities.
How do we deal with Federal Character/ affirmative action
What are the strategic decisions needed to be made to accelerate development in the various sectors of the economy.?
How do we properly secure our nation?
What should be our priorities? Well thought out national development priorities should dictate selection of sectors targets
How can Nigeria Separate Religion From our National Politics
What is Nigeria Infrastructure policy in concert with economic
Comments
Electronic Transmission: Reform or Redundancy?
Those advocating mandatory real-time transmission see it as an anti-rigging shield.
However, transmission cannot correct:
Transmission enhances transparency, but transparency is not the same as integrity.
Integrity begins with:
Electronic transmission strengthens stage five. It does not substitute stage three.
The Legal Dimension
Nigeria’s Electoral Act recognizes BVAS as a mandatory accreditation tool. Transmission to IReV, while operationally important, has faced legal interpretation debates regarding whether it is a compulsory determinant of final results.
This distinction fuels the controversy:
Is electronic transmission a transparency tool — or should it be a determinative legal instrument?
That question remains central to reform discussions.
A Balanced Way Forward
Rather than polarizing the debate into “for” or “against,” reform discussions may need to focus on three practical improvements:
A system is only as strong as its weakest link. Electronic transmission is one link — not the chain itself.
Conclusion: Integrity Is a System, Not a Feature
Nigeria’s electoral framework is hybrid — digital at accreditation, physical at coalation, digital again at transparency.
BVAS secures the entry point.
IReV enhances public visibility.
Collation safeguards legal validity.
Framing the debate as technology versus tradition oversimplifies a complex institutional design.
If Nigeria is to deepen electoral trust ahead of future election cycles, reform must address both technological and procedural safeguards — without overstating or understating either.
The real question is not simply “For or Against Electronic Transmission?”
It is:
How do all components work together to produce an election that citizens can trust?
That is the conversation that matters.
As debate intensifies over electronic transmission of election results in Nigeria, a deeper question emerges: Is real-time upload the true safeguard of electoral integrity — or does credibility begin earlier in the process?
This Where Integrity Actually Begins
Election credibility does not start at transmission. It starts at accreditation.
BVAS: The Input Gatekeeper
BVAS determines who votes.
Without secure accreditation:
BVAS creates an electronic accreditation record that can be audited. If 400 voters were accredited, 800 ballots cannot legitimately appear. That numeric discipline is foundational.
In electoral disputes, accreditation figures often become primary evidence.
In simple terms:
If the input is compromised, no amount of transparent output can correct it.
IReV: The Transparency Window
IReV displays scanned copies of polling unit result sheets online.
Its strength:
Its limitation:
Political party agents already possess signed copies of results before upload. The portal mirrors — it does not originate — those results.
Electronic Transmission: Reform or Redundancy?
Those advocating mandatory real-time transmission see it as an anti-rigging shield.
However, transmission cannot correct:
Transmission enhances transparency, but transparency is not the same as integrity.
Integrity begins with:
Electronic transmission strengthens stage five. It does not substitute stage three.
The Legal Dimension
Nigeria’s Electoral Act recognizes BVAS as a mandatory accreditation tool. Transmission to IReV, while operationally important, has faced legal interpretation debates regarding whether it is a compulsory determinant of final results.
This distinction fuels the controversy:
Is electronic transmission a transparency tool — or should it be a determinative legal instrument?
That question remains central to reform discussions.
A Balanced Way Forward
Rather than polarizing the debate into “for” or “against,” reform discussions may need to focus on three practical improvements:
A system is only as strong as its weakest link. Electronic transmission is one link — not the chain itself.
Conclusion: Integrity Is a System, Not a Feature
Nigeria’s electoral framework is hybrid — digital at accreditation, physical at coalation, digital again at transparency.
BVAS secures the entry point.
IReV enhances public visibility.
Collation safeguards legal validity.
Framing the debate as technology versus tradition oversimplifies a complex institutional design.
If Nigeria is to deepen electoral trust ahead of future election cycles, reform must address both technological and procedural safeguards — without overstating or understating either.
The real question is not simply “For or Against Electronic Transmission?”
It is:
How do all components work together to produce an election that citizens can trust?
That is the conversation that matters.
Electoral Reform Series | Reform or Redundancy?
