In Nigeria, elections are not merely civic engagements; they are emotional and economic events. They determine not only who governs, but how much faith citizens retain in democracy itself. This is why debates around the Electoral Act Amendment must be treated with the seriousness it deserves. It is not about partisan advantage; it is about institutional credibility.
Nigeria’s courts have repeatedly demonstrated that when the electoral process is flawed, the judiciary steps in as an emergency referee. This is neither healthy nor sustainable for democracy.
The landmark Amaechi v. INEC (2007) decision remains instructive. The Supreme Court ruled that it is the political party, not the individual candidate that wins an election. That judgment corrected a grave injustice, but it also exposed deep flaws in candidate selection processes and party conduct. Nearly two decades later, internal party democracy remains one of the weakest links in Nigeria’s electoral chain.
Many of today’s post-election litigations do not arise from voting day irregularities alone, but from flawed primaries, disputed substitutions, and opaque party processes. Strengthening provisions in the Electoral Act that regulate party primaries is not judicial overreach; it is legislative foresight. An amendment that enforces transparency at this level would reduce litigation and restore legitimacy from the ground up.
The debate around electronic transmission of results offers another clear lesson. In Atiku Abubakar v. INEC (2023) and Obi v. INEC (2023), petitioners challenged INEC’s failure to electronically transmit results as uploaded polling unit data. While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld INEC’s discretion under the existing law, the judgments also exposed a dangerous ambiguity: the law permits technology but does not compel its consistent use.
This gap fuels suspicion. When laws are unclear, trust evaporates. The National Assembly must learn from these rulings. Electoral laws should not rely on discretionary goodwill; they should provide certainty. If electronic transmission is central to election integrity, it must be clearly mandated, with defined standards and consequences for non-compliance.
INEC itself has acknowledged this reality. Following recent elections, the Commission admitted logistical and technological shortcomings and repeatedly called for earlier release of funds, clearer legal backing for technology deployment, and timely amendments to electoral laws. When the institution responsible for elections asks for stronger laws, legislators should listen.
Another recurring issue is the burden placed on the judiciary. Election tribunals and appellate courts are routinely overwhelmed, adjudicating matters that could have been prevented by better legislation. Electoral disputes dragging on for years do more than waste resources; they weaken governance and public confidence.
Yet electoral reforms often stall in the National Assembly for one uncomfortable reason: self-interest. Lawmakers are asked to reform the very system that produced them. But leadership demands rising above personal stakes. The Constitution did not establish the National Assembly to protect incumbency; it established it to protect the republic.
Timing is also critical. Electoral laws should not be amended on the eve of elections, nor endlessly deferred until political calculations align. Certainty is a democratic asset. Clear rules, enacted well ahead of elections, allow INEC to plan effectively and political actors to compete fairly.
Acting rightly does not mean acting recklessly. Reforms must be realistic and implementable. But caution must never become an excuse for stagnation. Each election conducted under ambiguous laws compounds public distrust and deepens voter apathy.
“To be or not to be” is not a philosophical dilemma here; it is a legislative responsibility. Nigeria’s courts have done their part by interpreting the law as it exists. INEC has done its part by highlighting operational gaps. The burden now rests squarely on the National Assembly.
Regardless of whether lawmakers opted for democratic conscience or partisan ease, history will remember. It’s obvious which option is best. What remains is the courage to act decisively, transparently, and in time.
If this moment is wasted, posterity may not judge it kindly!
John Kokome
A Communications Strategist and Public Affairs Analyst writes from Lagos
kokomejohn@yahoo.com
