ADVERTISEMENT

By Anderson Osiebe.
Executive Director
HallowMace Foundation Africa

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe has defended his decision to withdraw a call for division during Tuesday’s emergency plenary session convened by the Senate to address the controversial Clause 60 of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill — the clause dealing with Electronic Transmission of Election Results.

The emergency session was called amid heightened public interest and political tension surrounding the future of electronic transmission in Nigeria’s electoral framework.

During deliberations, Senator Abaribe called for a division — a formal voting procedure used to accurately count lawmakers’ positions on a matter. However, he shortly afterward withdrew the request, a move that attracted significant criticism across media platforms.

Responding to the backlash, the Abia South lawmaker clarified that his decision was neither a retreat nor a compromise, but a calculated legislative strategy aimed at protecting the broader objective of securing electronic transmission within the final version of the Electoral Act.

According to Senator Abaribe, proceeding with the division at that stage would likely have resulted in defeat, given the apparent numerical disposition in the chamber. Such a loss, he argued, would have weakened the reform effort and possibly removed the provision entirely from further consideration.

He emphasized that the legislative process does not end with Senate deliberations alone.

“Essentially, because the process involves harmonization with the House of Representatives,” Abaribe explained. “It is only after the House of Representatives version is not approved, that we can bring the sledge hammer of division.”

The senator’s remarks underscore a key aspect of Nigeria’s lawmaking process. When the Senate and the House of Representatives pass different versions of a bill, both chambers must reconcile their positions through a harmonization committee. It is at that stage that contentious provisions are negotiated and finalized before being transmitted for presidential assent.

Political observers note that forcing a division prematurely could have created a recorded defeat that might weaken the Senate’s negotiating position during harmonization.

By withdrawing the division, Abaribe appears to have opted for strategic patience, preserving the opportunity to deploy what he described as the “sledge hammer” — a decisive vote — if harmonization outcomes threaten the inclusion of electronic transmission.

The controversy highlights the tension between public expectations for assertive action and the often complex, incremental nature of legislative strategy.

While critics viewed the withdrawal as backing down, supporters argue that legislative battles are sometimes won not by dramatic confrontation, but by timing and tactical restraint.

As debate continues over electoral reforms, the issue of electronic transmission remains central to Nigeria’s democratic credibility, transparency, and public trust in elections.

The coming harmonization process between the Senate and the House of Representatives will now determine the final shape of Clause 60 — and whether electronic transmission of results remains firmly embedded in the nation’s electoral law.

ADVERTISEMENT

By

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr

The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on Monday, February 9, 2026, represents a consequential affirmation of the constitutional principles that sustain Nigeria’s democratic order and the orderly functioning of its institutions.

By upholding the disciplinary actions of the Senate as lawful and procedurally sound, the Court has robustly reinforced the doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. The ruling confirms with unmistakable clarity that the authority of the Senate to regulate its internal proceedings and discipline its members is firmly rooted in the Constitution and its Standing Orders. This authority is neither incidental nor ornamental; it is an essential responsibility entrusted to the legislature to preserve order, decorum, and institutional integrity in the discharge of its duties on behalf of the Nigerian people.

The Court of Appeal has further enriched our constitutional jurisprudence by clearly delineating the proper limits of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of a co-ordinate arm of government. While reaffirming the judiciary’s vital role as guardian of fundamental rights, the judgment recognises that the legislature must retain the autonomy necessary to enforce its rules and maintain discipline, provided it acts within the province of the law. This equilibrium is indispensable to effective governance and democratic stability.

The circumstances that gave rise to this litigation are regrettable. Parliamentary democracy rests on respect for established rules, collective responsibility, and due deference to the authority of the Chair. Persistent refusal to comply with lawful directives of the Presiding Officer—including the reallocation of seating arrangements within the chamber—as well as failure to appear before the statutory Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, runs counter to the ethos of parliamentary conduct. Such actions risk undermining institutional authority and distracting from the Senate’s higher obligations of legislation, oversight, and representation in the national interest.

While the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt proceedings and the associated fine on procedural grounds, it is significant that the core findings affirming the Senate’s disciplinary powers and the validity of its actions remain undisturbed. This distinction reinforces both the primacy of due process and the legitimacy of institutional self-regulation under the Constitution.

As the Senate moves forward, it remains steadfast in its constitutional mandate to foster robust debate, exercise rigorous oversight, and enact legislation that advances the peace, order, and good government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In keeping with the spirit of reconciliation and institutional maturity that must guide democratic leadership, the Senate looks ahead with restraint, goodwill, and an abiding commitment to collective purpose rather than past grievance.

In this spirit, the Senator concerned, who has since resumed legislative duties, is expected to continue her duties with renewed adherence to parliamentary rules, mutual respect, and the shared responsibilities that bind all members of the National Assembly.

The strength of our democracy ultimately lies in the strength of its institutions, each operating responsibly within its recognised constitutional remit. The judgment of the Court of Appeal fortifies that foundation and renews the resolve to build a disciplined, stable, and forward-looking legislature in service of the Nigerian people.

The facts have spoken for themselves

God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Rt. Hon. Eseme Eyiboh, MNIPR
Special Adviser, Media/Publicity and Official Spokesperson
to the President of the Senate

ADVERTISEMENT

By Dr Gabriel Nwambu

1. Introduction
The Centre for Credible Leadership and Citizens Awareness (CCLCA) views with grave concern the current legislative foot-dragging regarding the mandatory electronic transmission of election results. While the National Assembly has demonstrated remarkable speed in passing the “National Item” and approving various executive loan requests, the critical task of fixing the legal loopholes that led to the “technical glitches” of the 2023 General Elections has languished for three years.

As we approach the 2027 General Elections, the integrity of our democracy hinges on whether we choose to institutionalize transparency or continue to leave the sanctity of the vote to the “discretion” of individuals and systems prone to interference.

2. The Legislative Bottleneck: Section 60 and the Controversy of Discretion
The primary source of the 2023 electoral dispute lies in the ambiguous wording of the Electoral Act 2022, specifically Section 60, and its interplay with Section 50(2) and Section 64.

the Presiding Officer to transfer results, the courts interpreted the Act as giving INEC the “discretion” to determine the mode of transmission. This legal ambiguity allowed the shift from real-time electronic upload to manual collation during the 2023 Presidential Election, citing a “technical glitch.”

The Imperative for Amendment: We demand an amendment to Section 60 that replaces “may” with “shall.” The law must explicitly state:

Completion of the counting of votes and the signing of Form EC8A, transmit the total number of votes scored by a candidate and the scanned image of the result sheet (Form EC8A) in real-time and online to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) and the Central Server.”
3. Debunking the Infrastructure Myth
Arguments by some Senators that Nigeria lacks the requisite infrastructure are not only disingenuous but also a direct indictment of the current administration’s heavy investments in science and technology.

• Technical Viability: The Nigeria Society of Engineers (NSE) has confirmed that Nigeria possesses the requisite technological backbone to transmit data from any part of the country.
• Network Penetration: Even in the most remote areas, 2G and 3G network coverage exists. These networks are more than sufficient to transmit the small data packets required for a scanned Form EC8A (image/PDF) and text-based results.
• INEC’s Own Track Record: In 2023, before the sudden “glitch” affected the Presidential portal, INEC successfully uploaded over 93% of results from various categories. This proves that the system is capable; only the legal mandate to ensure its consistency is missing.
4. The Cost of Delay
The “Technical Glitch” of 2023 created a vacuum of trust that nearly destabilized our national peace. To allow the 2027 elections to proceed under the same vague legal framework is to invite a repeat of history.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The Centre for Credible Leadership and Citizens Awareness calls on the Senate to cease its delay tactics. To speak down on our nation’s technological capacity just to justify manual collation is a disservice to the President’s “Renewed Hope” agenda in the digital economy.
Our Prayers:
1. Mandatory Transmission: Amend Section 60 to make real-time electronic transmission of Form EC8A a mandatory, non-discretionary duty of the Presiding Officer.
2. Legal Consequences: Include strict penalties for any official who willfully fails to transmit results electronically where network coverage is available.
3. Audit Provisions: Grant political parties and accredited observers real-time read-only access to the backend of the Central Server to verify incoming data.
Nigeria is ready for a 21st-century election. The technology is here. The expertise is here. All that is missing is the political will to codify transparency into law.
Signed,
Dr. NWAMBU Gabriel
Director General
Centre for Credible Leadership and Citizens Awareness (CCLCA)