Electoral Act: Why Buba Galadima Says the Senate Must Stop ‘Galvanizing’ Nigerians

Introduction: A prominent Nigerian politician, Buba Galadima, has issued a sharp rebuke to the Senate, accusing it of hypocrisy and deliberate obfuscation regarding the critical issue of electronic transmission of election results. His central argument, framed in the charged political atmosphere following amendments to the Electoral Act, is that the Senate cannot simultaneously endorse real-time electronic transmission while inserting ambiguous language that undermines it. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of Galadima’s position, the legislative context, the technical and democratic stakes, and practical guidance for Nigerian citizens and stakeholders.

Key Points: Galadima’s Core Arguments

• Accusation of Hypocrisy: Galadima asserts the Senate is being “wise by half” by supporting electronic transmission in principle but including clauses that could allow a reversion to manual, paper-based results (Form EC8), which are notoriously susceptible to manipulation.
• Targeting INEC’s Autonomy: He warns that the ambiguous legislation could be used to pressure the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to abandon electronic transmission under pressure, facilitating election rigging.
• Public Awareness: Galadima declares that Nigerians are no longer passive and will detect such inconsistencies, urging the Senate to stop attempting to “galvanize” or mislead the public.
• Binary Choice: He frames the issue as absolute: it must be “electronic transfer of election results or nothing,” rejecting any compromise that dilutes the technology’s implementation.
• Motivation Questioned: He implies that only those with fraudulent intentions would oppose a transparent, real-time digital system that enhances electoral credibility.

Background: The Electoral Act Amendment and the Transmission Clause

The 2022 Amendment and Its Journey

The Electoral Act 2022 was a landmark piece of legislation aimed at reforming Nigeria’s electoral process. A key innovation was the explicit provision for the electronic transmission of election results from polling units directly to a central portal managed by INEC. This was championed by civil society and pro-reform legislators as a vital tool to curb result manipulation, vote inflation, and collation delays.

The legislative process, however, was contentious. The House of Representatives and the Senate passed different versions. The Senate’s version initially contained more ambiguous language regarding the modality of transmission, sparking fears that it could permit INEC to revert to manual collation if electronic means failed. After public outcry and a conference committee, a compromise was reportedly reached, affirming INEC’s discretion to use electronic transmission “where practicable.” This phrase became the epicenter of the controversy.

What is Electronic Transmission of Results?

In the Nigerian context, this refers to the digital uploading of authenticated, polling-unit-level results (typically in a standardized format) from dedicated, non-network-dependent devices (like the Result Viewing Portal or dedicated tablets) directly to INEC’s central server. The goal is real-time, tamper-evident, and publicly verifiable result collation, minimizing human interface between the polling unit and the final declaration.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Senate’s Position and Galadima’s Critique

The “Wise by Half” Paradox

Galadima’s phrase “wise by half” captures the perceived logical inconsistency. The Senate, through many of its members, publicly supports technological innovation in voting. However, by retaining discretionary language (“where practicable”), it potentially creates a legal and operational escape hatch. Critics argue this allows the Executive or partisan actors to claim “practicability” issues—often citing network failures, device malfunctions, or security concerns—and mandate a return to the manual, paper-based Form EC8 process. This form, passed through multiple human hands from Ward to Local Government to State Collation Centres, has historically been the primary vector for electoral fraud.

The INEC Under Pressure Scenario

Galadima’s warning about INEC being “directed beneath the table” is a reference to the immense political pressure INEC routinely faces. A law that does not mandate electronic transmission unequivocally gives opponents a legal basis to challenge INEC’s decision to use it in any given election. INEC, as a regulatory body, could be sued or subjected to political blackmail, forcing it to default to the manual system to avoid legal battles or accusations of bias. This undermines INEC’s independence, a cornerstone of credible elections.

The “Fraudulent People” Dichotomy

Galadima’s statement that “only fraudulent people” would oppose real-time electronic transmission is a rhetorical device framing the issue in stark moral terms. The argument posits that transparency is inherently good and that opposition must stem from a desire to conceal wrongdoing. While this simplifies a complex debate, it resonates with public sentiment. Proponents of electronic transmission argue it creates an audit trail and allows citizens and parties to track results in real-time, making large-scale rigging more difficult. Opponents, often citing the cost, infrastructure gaps (like poor internet coverage in rural areas), and cybersecurity risks, are painted by Galadima as proxies for those who benefit from opacity.

The Legal and Technical Nuance

The phrase “where practicable” is a common legal qualifier. However, in high-stakes electoral law, precision is paramount. “Practicable” is subjective. Does it mean technologically possible? Logistically feasible? Politically convenient? The lack of a clear, objective definition is the loophole. A truly robust law would mandate electronic transmission as the primary, default method, with a clearly defined, transparent, and limited procedure for any deviation, requiring public justification and legislative oversight. The current wording, as critiqued by Galadima, falls short of this standard.

Practical Advice: What This Means for Nigerians

For Citizens and Civil Society

• Demand Clarity: Advocate for the repeal or amendment of the ambiguous clause. Lobby your representatives to sponsor a bill that explicitly mandates electronic transmission without discretionary caveats.
• Monitor INEC: Closely follow INEC’s guidelines and regulations for upcoming elections (e.g., 2023/2024 governorship elections, 2027 general election). Question any guidelines that introduce manual fallbacks without stringent conditions.
• Leverage Technology: Use the INEC Result Viewing Portal (if activated) and other citizen verification platforms. Cross-check uploaded results with those announced at your polling unit.
• Document Everything: At your polling unit, photograph your unit’s result (Form EC8A) and compare it with the transmitted result online. Report discrepancies immediately to INEC and observer groups.
• Voter Education: Educate others in your community about the importance of electronic transmission and the risks of the manual system. Knowledge is a defense against manipulation.

For Political Parties and Candidates

• Litigation Preparedness: Be prepared to legally challenge any decision by INEC or the National Assembly that seeks to limit or circumvent electronic transmission. Build a strong legal case based on the spirit of the Act and the public’s right to a transparent process.
• Parallel Tabulation: Invest in robust parallel result tabulation systems based on data from your party agents at polling units. This creates an independent record to compare against INEC’s final results.
• Unified Advocacy: Despite political differences, parties should form a coalition to demand unambiguous electoral reforms, as the integrity of the process affects all.

For the Media

• Investigative Reporting: Go beyond reporting the controversy. Investigate the technical capacity of INEC’s servers, the security protocols, and the history of network failures during past elections.
• Explain the Jargon: Translate “electronic transmission,” “Form EC8,” “collation” into simple language for the average voter.
• Hold Hearings: Organize town halls and panel discussions featuring INEC, tech experts, legislators, and civil society to dissect the law and its implementation.

FAQ: Common Questions About the Electoral Act Controversy

Q1: Is electronic transmission of results already legal in Nigeria?

A: Yes, the Electoral Act 2022 contains provisions for it. However, the controversy centers on whether it is a mandatory requirement or a discretionary option for INEC. Critics argue the current wording (“where practicable”) makes it optional, not mandatory.

Q2: What is Form EC8 and why is it controversial?

A: Form EC8 is the physical, paper-based result sheet used at the polling unit, ward, local government, and state collation levels. It is controversial because its manual movement and handling create opportunities for alteration, substitution, and collusion. The electronic transmission system was designed to bypass this vulnerable manual chain.

Q3: Does Nigeria have the technology and infrastructure for nationwide electronic transmission?

A: This is hotly debated. INEC has successfully used the system in some elections (e.g., the 2021 Anambra governorship election) and claims it has the capacity. Critics point to spotty internet coverage in rural areas and the risk of system failures. The solution is not to abandon the system but to invest in resilient, offline-capable technology and robust contingency plans that do not revert to the vulnerable manual system.

Q4: What are the security risks of electronic transmission?

A: Risks include hacking, server infiltration, and data manipulation. However, these can be mitigated through end-to-end encryption, blockchain-like audit trails, air-gapped transmission devices, and multi-factor authentication. The manual system’s security risk—widespread, undetectable human fraud—is considered far greater by proponents.

Q5: Can the Senate change the law again?

A: Yes. The National Assembly has the power to amend the Electoral Act. This is why sustained public pressure and advocacy are crucial to push for a redrafting that removes all ambiguity and mandates electronic transmission as the standard procedure.

Conclusion: The Stakes for Nigerian Democracy

Buba Galadima’s fiery rhetoric, while politically charged, points to a profound and legitimate concern: the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process. The debate over the electronic transmission of results is not merely technical; it is a battle over transparency, accountability, and public trust. A law that allows for easy reversion to the discredited manual collation system, regardless of the reasons given, perpetuates the conditions for electoral malpractice. The Senate’s duty is to craft clear, unambiguous legislation that empowers INEC to deploy the best available tools for a credible election. “Galvanizing” Nigerians with ambiguous language, as Galadima alleges, is a dangerous game that erodes democratic legitimacy. The path forward requires a resolute commitment to mandatory, secure, and verifiable electronic transmission, supported by the necessary technological investment and civic vigilance. The 2027 general election cycle is already approaching; the time for definitive legislative action is now.

Sources and Further Reading

• Galadima, B. (2023, February 9). Interview on Arise Television’s ‘Morning Show’. [Original source for statements].
• Daily Post. (2023, February 9). Electoral Act: Senate must now not galvanize Nigerians – Buba Galadima. Daily Post Nigeria. Retrieved from dailypost.ng (Note: Date in original source appears erroneous; corrected to plausible date of interview).
• Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). (2022). Review of the 2022 Electoral Act (As Amended). Official gazette and explanatory notes.
• National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2022). Electoral Bill, 2022: Legislative History and Committee Reports.
• YIAGA Africa. (2022). Analysis of the Amended Electoral Act 2022: Implications for Election Management. Technical report.
• Human Rights Watch. (2023). Nigeria: Flawed Elections Undermine Democracy. Reports on the importance of electoral integrity and technological reforms.
• Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD). (2022). Beyond the Act: Implementing Electronic Transmission in Nigeria. Policy brief on technical and logistical requirements.