Real-Time Digital Transmission of Election Results: Understanding the Nigerian Debate and Its Risks

The push for mandated “real-time” electronic transmission of election results has become a fiercely debated topic in Nigeria’s ongoing electoral reform process. A significant controversy erupted following claims that the Senate had rejected a provision for mandatory real-time transmission, leading to protests and a war of words. This article dissects the core of the dispute, moving beyond political slogans to analyze the technical, legal, and procedural realities of election result management in Nigeria. We will explore why the demand for real-time transmission is viewed by critics not as a progressive reform, but as a potentially dangerous tactic that could create a “judicial ambush” and destabilize the electoral process.

Key Points: The Core of the Controversy

• The Senate’s Action: The Senate Committee on Electoral Matters retained the existing provision of the 2022 Electoral Act, which allows for digital transmission of results but does not mandate real-time upload the moment polls close. It preserved a role for manual backup.
• The Protest Narrative: Opposition groups and civic actors protested, alleging the Senate rejected “real-time” transmission, framing it as an attack on transparency and electoral integrity.
• Technical vs. Rhetorical: The debate confuses “digital transmission” with “real-time.” Critics argue that given Nigeria’s spotty internet connectivity and broadband penetration, mandating instant upload is impractical and risks systemic failure.
• The “Judicial Ambush” Thesis: Analysts like Rotimi Fasan argue the aggressive push for a rigid real-time mandate is a strategic move to create grounds for post-election litigation and nullification, targeting an election an opposition feels it may lose.
• Procedural Confusion: The controversy was fueled by a misleading press conference by the Senate Minority Caucus, which misrepresented the outcome of a committee stage vote, creating a false narrative of a majority rejection.

Background: Nigeria’s Electoral Result Transmission System

The INEC Result Viewing Portal (IREV)

Since the 2023 general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has utilized the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IREV). This platform allows for the uploading of scanned copies of election results—specifically Form EC8A—from polling units and collation centers. The intent is to enhance transparency by enabling public access to results as they are certified and uploaded.

What the 2022 Electoral Act Says

The current Electoral Act (2022) amended Section 60. Subsection (5) states that INEC “may” transmit results electronically. Crucially, it does not use the word “shall” or “must.” It also provides that where electronic transmission is not feasible, results shall be conveyed physically. This creates a flexible, dual-track system: digital is preferred, manual is the fallback. The recent legislative debate concerned an amendment to change this to a mandatory, real-time digital transmission.

Analysis: Deconstructing the “Real-Time” Demand

1. The Semantic and Technical Distinction: Transmission vs. Real-Time

A critical point of confusion is the difference between digital transmission and real-time transmission. Digital transmission simply means sending results in electronic format (e.g., scanning and uploading a form). Real-time transmission implies the result is uploaded the instant voting ends and counting is completed at a polling unit, with no delay.

In Nigeria’s context, the result uploaded is a scanned image of the manually filled Form EC8A. The votes themselves are cast and counted manually on physical ballot papers. Therefore, the “transmission” is of a static document, not live vote counts. True real-time transmission of live counts would require a fully digital, end-to-end voting system, which Nigeria does not have. The demand, therefore, is for the *document* to be uploaded instantly after manual collation.

2. The Infrastructure Challenge: Beyond Broadband Penetration

Proponents often cite improved broadband penetration. However, electoral transmission requires not just internet availability, but reliable, widespread, and secure connectivity across thousands of often-remote polling units simultaneously. As noted, millions of Nigerians daily experience failed online banking transactions and dropped calls. Applying this unstable network to a nationwide, time-sensitive electoral operation is a high-risk gamble. A single widespread outage could paralyze result uploads for hours, creating a vacuum filled by speculation and misinformation.

3. The “Judicial Ambush” Strategy Explained

The term “judicial ambush” refers to a pre-meditated legal strategy. The argument posits that an opposition party, anticipating electoral defeat, would push for a rigid, technologically unfeasible law. After the election, they would then challenge the results in court or tribunal, arguing that because the law mandated “real-time” transmission and it demonstrably failed in many areas due to infrastructure gaps, the entire election should be nullified. This is not about improving the process but about finding a technical pretext for legal contestation. The 2023 election already saw a surge in election petitions; a failed real-time mandate could exponentially increase litigation, prolonging legal uncertainty.

4. Misrepresentation and Political Theater

The protest was predicated on a falsehood. The Senate Minority Caucus, led by Senator Abaribe, claimed the Senate majority had rejected real-time transmission. In reality, at the committee stage, the majority retained the status quo (“may transmit”) as in the existing Act. The minority lost the vote but publicly claimed a unanimous agreement for real-time transmission. This act of disinformation by a respected leader set the stage for the protests, demonstrating how legislative process can be deliberately misrepresented to mobilize public sentiment and pressure legislators.

5. The Risk of Systemic Failure and “Force Majeure”

Mandating an infeasible technical requirement could constitute a force majeure—an unforeseen, uncontrollable event that makes compliance impossible. If the law says “must upload in real-time” and network failures prevent it, what is the legal status of those results? Would they be declared void? This could invalidate thousands of polling unit results, potentially overturning election outcomes based not on voter choice but on telecom infrastructure. It would empower “marginal political parties” to challenge results on technicalities, not on evidence of actual vote manipulation.