Why Nigerians Reject Ambiguous Electoral Regulations: A Call for a Clear, Technically Sound Electoral Act

Nigeria’s democratic journey has been repeatedly hampered by post-election legal battles, public distrust, and allegations of manipulation. A central, often overlooked, driver of these crises is the quality of the laws governing elections. Dr. Ezeh Emmanuel, a prominent Labour Party figure and the party’s 2023 House of Representatives candidate, has articulated a powerful and widely shared sentiment: that decades of poorly drafted, ambiguous electoral regulations are a primary source of Nigeria’s electoral problems. He calls for a new, technically rigorous Electoral Act to restore integrity, reduce litigation, and align the law with modern democratic standards. This article examines his arguments, the technical flaws in the current framework, proposed solutions, and the broader implications for Nigeria’s democratic consolidation.

Introduction: The Crisis of Clarity in Nigeria’s Electoral Laws

The 2023 general elections, like many before it, were followed by a cascade of election petition tribunals and court cases. While political competition is inherent to democracy, the sheer volume of litigation points to systemic weaknesses. Dr. Ezeh Emmanuel posits that the root cause is not merely political will but legislative craftsmanship. In a formal statement, he asserted that Nigeria’s electoral regulations have been “ambiguously drafted” for too long, containing “structural gaps, unclear definitions and weak internal linkages” that invite manipulation and guarantee disputes. His core thesis is that a technically sound, unambiguous, and manipulation-proof Electoral Act is not a luxury but a necessity for a stable democracy. This perspective shifts the reform debate from partisan politics to the technical and legal engineering of the electoral process itself.

Key Points: The Blueprint for a Better Electoral Act

Dr. Ezeh’s statement provides a clear blueprint for legislative action. The key demands can be summarized as follows:

• Technical Rigor Over Political Compromise: The new law must be drafted with precision to eliminate loopholes, ensuring it is “manipulation-proof.”
• Harmonized Provisions: Contradictory sections, especially those governing result collation and record-keeping, must be reconciled to prevent conflicting interpretations during elections.
• Robust Interpretation Clauses: Key terms must be explicitly defined to stop deliberate misrepresentation and provide a single, authoritative meaning for all stakeholders, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the courts.
• Streamlined Collation Architecture: Proposing a single central collation point for legislative elections (House of Assembly, House of Representatives, Senate) and a two-tier system (state, then national) for presidential elections to minimize manipulation opportunities at intermediate levels.
• Mandatory Digital Transmission: Enshrining the compulsory electronic transmission of polling unit results (Form EC8A) to a publicly accessible portal (like the INEC Result Viewing Portal, IReV) to enhance transparency.
• Inclusive Voter Accreditation: Expanding acceptable identification documents beyond the Permanent Voter Card (PVC) to include the National Identification Number (NIN), international passports, and other national IDs for verification purposes.
• Civic Coalition Pressure: Urging organized labour and professional bodies (NLC, TUC, NBA, MAN, etc.) to unite in advocating for this critical legislation.

Background: The Historical Context of Ambiguity

A Legacy of Loopholes

Nigeria’s electoral legal framework has evolved through successive amendments, often in reaction to crisis rather than through proactive design. The Electoral Act 2022 was a significant update, introducing innovations like early voting for certain officials and provisions for electronic transmission. However, critics, including Dr. Ezeh, argue it retained critical ambiguities. For instance, while mandating electronic transmission, it did not robustly define the technical standards, timelines, or contingency protocols for “real-time upload.” This vagueness allowed for divergent interpretations during the 2023 elections, where the feasibility and mandatory nature of real-time upload were hotly contested.

The Cost of Unclear Language

The consequence of ambiguous drafting is a predictable cycle: 1) Inconsistent Application: INEC officials and political party agents interpret rules differently at polling units, collation centers, and tribunals. 2) Exploitation: Bad actors exploit these gaps for tactical advantage, such as delaying results or questioning the validity of electronically transmitted forms based on procedural technicalities. 3) Erosion of Trust: The public witnesses these disputes and concludes the system is rigged or fundamentally flawed. 4) Prolonged Litigation: Courts are burdened with determining the “spirit” of the law rather than applying clear text, leading to unpredictable judgments and delayed finality of election outcomes.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Technical Flaws

Dr. Ezeh’s critique is not merely political rhetoric; it identifies specific, verifiable technical deficiencies in the current electoral law.

1. The Scourge of Undefined Key Terms

The failure to define essential operational terms is a fundamental drafting failure. Terms like:

• “Real-time upload to the IReV”: What constitutes “real-time”? Seconds? Minutes? Is it a hard requirement or an aspirational goal? What happens if the network fails? Without a definition, the requirement becomes a suggestion open to selective enforcement.
• “Electronic transmission of results”: Does this refer only to the final collated results or also to unit-level forms (EC8A)? What technology is approved? Is a photograph of a paper form sufficient? The ambiguity directly fueled debates on whether INEC could legally announce results without all EC8As uploaded.
• Other critical terms like “substantial compliance,” “majority,” and even precise definitions of “accreditation” versus “voting” have been sources of legal disputes.

Legal Implication: Under principles of statutory interpretation, courts seek to give effect to legislative intent. When the law is silent or ambiguous, judges may resort to extrinsic materials or develop doable standards, effectively creating law from the bench—a role for the legislature. This leads to inconsistent rulings across different tribunals.

2. Weak Cross-Referencing and Contradictory Provisions

The Electoral Act is a complex document. Sections on collation (e.g., Sections 62, 64) must seamlessly link with sections on result declaration (Section 68) and the powers of returning officers. Dr. Ezeh notes these “inner linkages” are often weak. For example, the procedure for collating senatorial results from multiple local government areas may not be perfectly synchronized with the timeline for transmitting those results to the national collation center. These seams are where procedural disputes emerge.

3. The Multi-Layered Collation Problem

Dr. Ezeh’s proposal to simplify collation for legislative elections to a single central point is a direct response to the “multiple layers” problem. The current system requires results to pass through ward, local government, and state collation centers before final declaration. Each layer is a potential point for:

• Deliberate delay or obstruction.
• Alteration of results.
• Confusion over which officer has ultimate authority to collate and declare.
• Creation of multiple “markets” for negotiation and corruption.

Streamlining this process reduces human interface points and potential failure modes.

Practical Advice: Pathways to Reform

Translating this analysis into actionable reform requires a multi-stakeholder approach.

For the National Assembly (The Primary Duty-Bearer)

1. Establish a Technical Drafting Committee: This committee must include not just lawyers and politicians, but also election technology experts, data managers, logicians, and linguists. Their task is to stress-test every provision for ambiguity, contradiction, and potential for manipulation.
2. Mandate Definitions: Every operative term must be defined in a dedicated interpretation section with exhaustive, unambiguous language.
3. Conduct Mock Elections: Before final passage, the draft bill should be subjected to simulated election scenarios by INEC, parties, and civil society to identify and fix procedural gaps.
4. Public Hearing with a Technical Focus: During public hearings, should specifically question witnesses on the clarity and technical feasibility of specific clauses, not just broad political desires.

For Civil Society, Labour, and Professional Bodies

• Form a Unified Coalition: As Dr. Ezeh urged, groups like the NLC, TUC, NBA, and MAN must speak with one voice. Their collective pressure is harder for legislators to ignore. This coalition should develop a non-negotiable checklist for the new Act based on technical clarity.
• Public Education: Launch campaigns explaining why technical drafting matters. Use simple analogies: “A law that says ‘drive safely’ is useless without specific speed limits and traffic signs.”
• Scorecard Legislation: Develop a public scorecard rating each section of the draft bill on a clarity index (1-10) and publish it widely.

For INEC and Election Stakeholders

• Submit Formal Technical Briefs: INEC, as the implementing agency, has a duty to formally communicate to the National Assembly the precise operational challenges caused by ambiguous laws, with concrete examples from past elections.
• Develop Model Regulations: INEC can draft its own proposed amended regulations that plug the gaps, providing a ready-made technical template for legislators.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: Is this just a Labour Party issue?

A: No. The problem of ambiguous electoral laws affects all participants and observers. The 2023 election petitions were filed by candidates from various parties. The call for clarity is a non-partisan, systemic reform demand. A clear law protects the winner from spurious challenges and the loser from having genuine grievances dismissed on technicalities. It levels the playing field.

Q2: Can’t INEC just clarify things through its own guidelines and regulations?

A: INEC’s powers are derived from the Electoral Act. If the Act is ambiguous, INEC’s guidelines may be challenged as exceeding its statutory authority or as inconsistent. Only the primary legislation (the Electoral Act) can provide the definitive, unchallengeable clarity needed. Guidelines are subordinate and can be reversed by a new Commission; a clear Act is enduring.

Q3: What is “electronic transmission of results” and why is the definition so important?

A: It refers to the secure, digital sending of election results from polling units to a central database. The definition is critical because it determines the legal standard. Does it mean the scanned image of Form EC8A must be uploaded? Or must the data be entered into a structured database? Does it require encryption? What is the backup protocol if the primary system fails? Without a clear definition, parties can argue that a photographed form is not “electronic transmission,” or that a server glitch invalidates all results, creating unnecessary chaos and litigation.

Q4: How would a single central collation point for legislative elections work in practice?

A: Under this proposal, after voting at the polling unit, the results (Form EC8A) are transmitted electronically to a secure, publicly accessible national portal (IReV). The Returning Officer for, say, the House of Representatives seat for a constituency, would then directly access all uploaded EC8As from all polling units in that constituency from the national portal. They would collate the results digitally and declare the winner, bypassing the need to physically collect results from dozens of ward or local government collation officers. This reduces touchpoints and potential for human interference.

Q5: Isn’t accepting multiple IDs (NIN, passport) a security risk for voter fraud?

A: The proposal is for verification, not just presentation. The key is linking the presented ID to the voter’s biometric data (fingerprint, facial recognition) already stored in INEC’s database during voter registration. The PVC is one key, but the NIN or international passport is another biometric-linked key. The process would still involve matching the person’s live biometrics to the registered record. The goal is to make accreditation more accessible (especially for those who may lose PVCs) while maintaining or even enhancing biometric integrity. The law must define the precise verification protocol to prevent misuse.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Nigerian Democracy

The call by Dr. Ezeh Emmanuel transcends partisan politics. It is a diagnostic of a deeper flaw in Nigeria’s electoral architecture: the failure to subject its foundational laws to the same rigor expected of its technology and administrative processes. Ambiguity in law is not neutrality; it is a vulnerability that is systematically exploited, to the detriment of public trust and democratic stability. The current National Assembly faces a historic opportunity. By prioritizing technical precision, clear definitions, and streamlined processes in a new Electoral Act, it can break the cycle of post-election litigation and suspicion. This requires lawmakers to rise above short-term political calculations and engage in meticulous, evidence-based lawmaking. The coalition of labour, professionals, and civil society must sustain focused pressure, armed with a clear, technical reform agenda. The alternative is to perpetuate a system where the rules of the game are unclear, ensuring that every election will be followed by conflict rather than celebration. For Nigeria to achieve truly credible elections, the law itself must first be credible—unambiguously so.