ADVERTISEMENT

President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, has called for an emergency plenary sitting of the Senate.

The sitting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at 12 noon.

The directive for recovering the Senate was contained in a statement signed by the Clerk of the Senate, Emmanuel Odo, PhD.

The statement said that all Senators were kindly requested to be in attendance.

*The notice of the emergency sitting was contained in a memo dated 8 February and circulated to senators.*

Senators will reconvene for an emergency plenary session on Tuesday amid Nigerians’ demand for the inclusion of mandatory electronic transmission of results in the amendment to the Electoral Act.

The upper chamber had adjourned plenary for two weeks last Wednesday after passing the Electoral Act amendment bill, to enable lawmakers engage heads of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) in the defence of their 2026 budget proposals.

The notice of the emergency sitting was contained in a memo dated 8 February and circulated to senators. It was signed by the Clerk of the Senate, Emmanuel Odo.

In the memo, Mr Odo said he was acting on the directive of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.

“I am directed by His Excellency, the President of the Senate, Distinguished Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, to inform all Distinguished Senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that an Emergency Sitting of the Senate has been scheduled to hold as follows: Date: Tuesday, 10th February, 2026. Time:12:00 Noon. Venue: Senate Chamber.”

He urged senators to attend the sitting and apologised for any inconvenience it might cause.

“Distinguished Senators are kindly requested to note this Emergency Sitting date and attend. All inconveniences this will cause to Distinguished Senators are highly regretted, please.”

The memo did not state the reason for the emergency plenary. However, there are strong indications that it is connected to the public outrage over the Electoral Act amendment bill passed last Wednesday before the adjournment.

Although several provisions of the law were amended, public attention has focused mainly on one controversial clause: the rejection of mandatory electronic transmission of election results from polling units to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Result Viewing Portal (IREV).

Public opinion has been largely divided. However, many political parties, politicians and activists have condemned the amendment and urged lawmakers to reconsider it.

Some civil groups and activists have called for protests at the National Assembly. A group operating under the banner Enough is Enough has begun mobilising supporters using the hashtag #OccupyNASS.

Amid the criticism, some senators in the minority caucus told journalists on Thursday that the Electoral Act amendment bill does, in fact, accommodate electronic transmission of election results.

The senators were led by Abia South senator, Eyinnaya Abaribe of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). He said confusion over the provision arose from side conversations during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in plenary.

However, Mr Akpabio, speaking at a book launch on Saturday, acknowledged that the Senate removed the provision for mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results during the clause-by-clause consideration of the amendment.

The senate president said the decision was informed by concerns that enforcing real-time transmission could lead to legal disputes in the event of network failures during elections.

*Major clauses of the amendment*

The lawmakers rejected the proposal to make the electronic transmission of election results from polling units to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s Result Viewing Portal (IREV) mandatory after vote counting.

Instead, under Clause 60, the Senate retained the provision in the 2022 Electoral Act that allows election results to be transmitted to the collation centre.

On voter identification under Clause 47, lawmakers rejected a proposal to allow alternative forms of identification for voting other than the Permanent Voter Card (PVC). Rather, they replaced “smart card readers” with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for accreditation and voting, thereby retaining the PVC as the sole mandatory means of identification at polling units.

Initially, the bill had proposed that since BVAS does not read the microchip embedded in PVCs, the card should no longer be compulsory for voting, allowing the use of the National Identification Number (NIN), Nigerian passport, or birth certificate. However, the Senate disagreed with this proposal and retained the PVC as the primary mode of voter identification.

On Clause 22, which prescribes penalties for PVC-related offences, lawmakers rejected a proposed 10-year jail term for the buying and selling of PVCs. Instead, they retained the two-year imprisonment term and increased the fine from ₦2 million to ₦5 million.

Regarding proof of non-compliance, the Senate deleted Clause 142, which would have allowed parties to prove non-compliance solely through original or certified documents without oral evidence. The lawmakers, during the clause-by-clause consideration, argued that the provision would amount to a “waste of time in court.”

On ballot paper inspection, Clause 44 retained the existing procedure, which gives political parties two days to submit written approval or disapproval of their representations on sample ballot papers. INEC is also required to invite parties to inspect sample electoral materials at least 20 days before an election.

Under Clause 29, the deadline for political parties to submit their candidate lists was reduced from 120 days to 90 days before the election.

To curb vote buying, lawmakers amended Clause 22 to impose stiffer penalties, increasing the fine for offenders from ₦500,000 to ₦5 million.

On post-election disputes, the Senate amended Clause 136 by removing the power of election tribunals to declare winners outright in certain circumstances. The amendment now provides that where a candidate is found not to have been validly elected for failing to score the majority of lawful votes, a rerun election shall be conducted, with the disqualified candidate and the sponsoring party barred from participating.

This section contradicts the provision of the 2022 Electoral Act, which provides that where an election tribunal nullifies an election on the ground that the candidate with the highest votes was not qualified, the candidate with the second-highest number of valid votes should be declared elected.

(C) Premium Times

This may not be unconnected to the backlash that followed passage of the Amended Electoral Act Bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Six years after, MCSS, Abuja came back to life as former president,Titi Fabamwo nee Akinwunmi hosted old classmates at Grills City in Abuja on Sunday.

In attendance at Grills City, Landers; Okerum Benson,Tayo Akinbiyi née Elegbede, Jife Tobun nee Okagbare
, Titi Fabamwo nee Akinwunmi, Emmanuel Ovuakporie.

It was fun galore all the way.

ADVERTISEMENT

…demands probe of lawmakers

c probe the conduct of members of the Senate who allegedly participated in the removal of the provisions on electronic transmission of election results from the Electoral Act amendment Bill during plenary after the majority of the senators had voted for the inclusion of the provisions and without any debate on the proposed removal of the said provisions.”

SERAP also “requests the Bureau to promptly and effectively investigate the conduct of any members of the National Assembly and officers of the executive branch who allegedly altered the Tax Reform Bills which resulted in the reported discrepancies between the harmonised versions of the tax reform bills passed by the National Assembly and the copies signed into law and gazetted by the Federal Government.”

The petition was sent to Dr. Abdullahi Usman Bello, Chairman, Code of Conduct Bureau.

In the petition dated 7 February 2026 and signed by SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization said, “The petition raises issues of conflict of interest, abuse of office, non-disclosure of interests, lack of due process, and erosion of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers in the exercise of legislative power.”

According to SERAP, “the petition is submitted pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in the Fifth Schedule, Part 1 to the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) and sections 5 and 13 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.”

SERAP’s petition, read in part: “Where lawmaking is shaped by abuse of office and conflict of interest, it ceases to be a legitimate exercise of constitutional and fiduciary responsibility and becomes a legal and ethical infraction prohibited under the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.”

“The processes leading to the passage of the Electoral Act amendment Bill by the Senate and the signing into law of the Tax Reform bills were allegedly marked by: a) alterations to bill provisions without debate and due process of law; b) alterations of the passed Tax Reform Bill without the approval of the National Assembly.”

There are also allegations that certain amendments may have been removed or introduced to the Electoral Act Amendment Bill and the Tax Reform Laws to serve private or political interests rather than the public interest.”

“Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Nigerian Constitution prohibits public officers from placing themselves in situations where personal interests conflict with official duties. This constitutional provision mandates integrity, ensuring that personal gain does not interfere with the objective performance of public functions.”

“Members of the National Assembly and officers of the executive branch of government are public officers within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of the Fifth Schedule to the Nigerian Constitution and are therefore bound by constitutional provisions on the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.”

“Section 15(5) of the Nigerian Constitution imposes the responsibility on public institutions to “abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power including in the context of lawmaking.”

“According to paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in the Fifth Schedule, Part 1 to the Nigerian Constitution, ‘any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.’”

“Paragraph 3 (e) of the Third Schedule Part 1 to the Constitution provides that, ‘the Bureau shall have power to receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto, investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, refer such matters to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.’”

between the tax reform bills passed by the legislative body and the tax reform laws gazetted by the Federal Government.”

“A Sokoto lawmaker, Abdussamad Dasuki, raised the issue under a matter of privilege, drawing the attention of the House to the alleged discrepancies between the harmonised versions of the tax reform bills passed by both chambers of the National Assembly and the copies gazetted by the Federal Government.”

“The lawmakers said the alterations contained in the gazetted copies did not receive legislative approval. These alleged unlawful alterations raise questions over the legality and legitimacy of both the law-making processes and the versions of the tax laws circulated by the Federal Ministry of Information.”

SERAP is requesting the Code of Conduct Bureau to register the petition as a formal complaint and to:

Promptly, thoroughly, transparently and effectively investigate the conduct of the lawmakers and officers of the executive branch allegedly involved in the conduct which is the subject-matter of this petition;
Examine whether inducements, benefits, or promises were offered or received in connection with those acts;
Examine whether the alleged cumulative conduct of lawmakers and officers of the executive branch amounted to abuse of legislative power, conflict of interest and due process of law, contrary to the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
Refer any substantiated violations of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers to the Code of Conduct Tribunal; and
Take all necessary steps to vindicate the principle that public office is a public trust.