Opposition parties and civil society groups have sharply criticised the signing of the amended Electoral Act by Bola Ahmed Tinubu, saying it could deepen political tensions ahead of the 2027 general elections, while the ruling party has defended the move as constitutional and necessary.
Several civil society organisations (CSOs) described the amendment as a setback for democratic consolidation, particularly over provisions relating to the electronic transmission of election results. They urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to release a revised timetable for the 2027 polls in line with the new 300-day notice requirement introduced by the Electoral Act 2026.
At a joint press briefing in Abuja, groups including Yiaga Africa, The Kukah Centre, Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), International Press Centre (IPC), ElectHER, Nigerian Women Trust Fund and The Albino Foundation (TAF) Africa faulted what they called the opaque process that led to the bill’s passage. Speaking for the coalition, Jake Epelle of TAF Africa alleged that the harmonised version of the bill was adopted through a voice vote without adequate circulation of the final text to lawmakers, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
The organisations warned that clauses permitting manual transmission of results under certain conditions could weaken electoral safeguards and erode public trust. They insisted that mandatory real-time electronic transmission from polling units remains the minimum standard for credible elections.
Similarly, the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) expressed unease over the manner of the amendment’s passage. In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Egbeola Wale Martins, the council cautioned that public officials would ultimately be judged by history for their actions. IPAC reiterated its demand for unconditional electronic transmission of results directly from polling units to the IReV portal to enhance transparency and credibility.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) accused the President of undermining electoral integrity, alleging that the speed of assent suggested an attempt to influence the 2027 elections. In a statement signed by its spokesman, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party argued that the amendment introduces ambiguity in the collation and transmission of results and could heighten tensions if electronic safeguards are not firmly guaranteed. The ADC vowed to mobilise citizens to defend the democratic process through lawful means.
ActionAid Nigeria also rejected the amendment, describing the swift presidential assent—less than 24 hours after passage—as troubling for a law that shapes the nation’s democratic trajectory. The group called for broader consultation and institutional scrutiny in electoral reforms.
The Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education (CHRICED) criticised provisions allowing manual transmission in cases of network failure, arguing that such flexibility could open the door to manipulation. It maintained that Nigeria possesses the technical capacity for real-time electronic transmission and that such safeguards would reduce disputes and post-election litigation.
Political economist Pat Utomi described the amendment as a dangerous turning point, characterising it as a confrontation between political leaders and citizens. In public remarks, he urged Nigerians, particularly young people, to defend democratic gains.
In contrast, the Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) dismissed the criticisms as politically motivated. The party argued that the President acted within constitutional bounds and that reform must be measured and legally sustainable rather than driven by public pressure. It also questioned the assumption that electronic transmission alone guarantees credible elections, citing potential technological and legal challenges.
With political actors and civil society divided, the amendment has intensified debate over the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral framework as preparations for 2027 gather momentum.
About The Author
