ADVERTISEMENT

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.