Electronic Transmission: Key Differences Between Senate, House Versions of Electoral Act Amendment Bill

Femi Ashekun/

The Senate and the House of Representatives have adopted differing provisions in the ongoing amendment of Nigeria’s Electoral Act, particularly on the electronic transmission of election results, setting the stage for possible harmonisation by a conference committee.

The divergence centres on how strictly electronic transmission should be enforced, when it should occur and what happens if it fails.

Under the House of Representatives’ version, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) “shall electronically transmit” election results in real time and simultaneously with physical collation.

The language is mandatory and does not expressly provide for broad exceptions. Transmission is required from each polling unit, reinforcing polling unit level transparency.

The House proposal also does not downgrade the legal weight of the electronic record, meaning failure to transmit could constitute a statutory breach and provide clearer grounds for litigation.

By contrast, the Senate version also uses mandatory language, stating that “the Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit” results from each polling unit.

However, it introduces notable qualifications. Transmission is to take place after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped at the polling unit, rather than explicitly requiring real time or simultaneous upload with physical collation.

Form EC8A is the official result sheet completed at the polling unit after votes are counted. In the Senate draft, where electronic transmission fails due to “communication failure”, the physical Form EC8A becomes the “primary source” of the result.

This effectively entrenches the supremacy of the manually signed document in such circumstances, while the electronic record becomes supplementary.

The Senate bill further introduces an exception clause for “communication failure” where transmission becomes impossible. While this preserves electronic transmission in principle, it reduces its absolute enforceability and may shift disputes towards how “communication failure” is defined and proven in court.

Legal analysts note that this could complicate post election litigation, as parties may be required to demonstrate whether failure was genuine or avoidable.

On the question of simultaneity, the House version expressly requires electronic transmission to occur in parallel with physical collation, reinforcing what some election observers describe as a “parallel safeguard” against manipulation during collation.

The Senate version contains no express simultaneity requirement, which critics argue weakens that safeguard.

Both chambers, however, agree that transmission should occur at the polling unit level, a practice already introduced administratively by INEC through the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and the INEC Results Viewing Portal during the 2023 general elections.

The debate over electronic transmission dates back to the passage of the Electoral Act 2022. After intense negotiations between the National Assembly and the executive, the final version empowered INEC to determine the procedure for transmission of results, subject to regulations and technological feasibility.

INEC subsequently adopted electronic uploading of polling unit results as part of its guidelines.

The current amendment effort appears aimed at clarifying and tightening the statutory framework.

Supporters of the House position argue that explicit real time and simultaneous transmission strengthens transparency and deterrence against manipulation.

Those backing the Senate version contend that recognising communication challenges in remote areas reflects operational realities and protects the integrity of results where technology fails.

The two versions must now be reconciled before a final amendment bill can be transmitted to the President for assent.

The outcome will shape the legal architecture for electronic result transmission ahead of the next general election cycle and could influence how election disputes are argued and determined in Nigerian courts.