President Bola Tinubu signed the 2026 Electoral Act Amendment into law in February 2026, introducing key reforms to Nigeria’s electoral framework ahead of the 2027 general elections.
This legislation amends the 2022 Electoral Act, mandating electronic transmission of results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) while designating physical Form EC8A sheets as the primary source for collation and declaration in cases of failure.
Legally, this dual mechanism balances technological advancement with practical contingencies, potentially reducing disputes over result authenticity under Section 60(3), but it invites judicial scrutiny if electronic failures are alleged to have compromised outcomes.
The amendment tightens voter accreditation by retaining the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) as the standard under Clause 47, with stricter identification requirements limited to National Identification Numbers (NIN), passports, or birth certificates.
This provision strengthens legal safeguards against multiple voting and impersonation, aligning with constitutional imperatives for credible elections under Section 77 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Courts may now more readily invalidate results from polling units lacking BVAS compliance, escalating the evidentiary burden on petitioners in election tribunals.
Compressed timelines represent another pivotal change, reducing the election notice period from 360 to 300 days and mandating INEC funding release at least six months pre-election.
These adjustments, enacted via Clauses on timelines and funding, compel stricter adherence to statutory deadlines for candidate nominations and primaries, minimizing pre-election litigation over delays.
However, they could spawn constitutional challenges if perceived as infringing on political parties’ rights to association under Section 40, particularly for smaller parties struggling with shortened preparation windows.
The abolition of indirect primaries in favor of direct primaries or consensus candidacy under stricter party guidelines curtails delegate-based manipulations that fueled past disputes.
Legally, this promotes intra-party democracy as envisioned in Section 87(4)(b)-(c) of the Constitution, but consensus options retain discretion for party leaders, potentially inviting lawsuits alleging exclusionary practices.
Tribunals are likely to scrutinize consensus processes more rigorously, demanding proof of broad consultation to uphold fairness principles.
Enhanced penalties for electoral offenses, such as the N500,000 fine or six-month imprisonment for frustrating electronic transmission under Clause 60, elevate deterrence and accountability.
This aligns with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act’s emphasis on swift prosecution, enabling INEC to pursue criminal sanctions alongside civil remedies.
Prosecutors gain stronger grounds for convictions, as willful non-compliance now carries explicit statutory weight, deterring presiding officers from sabotaging digital uploads.
A special fund for INEC under Clause 3 ensures financial autonomy, insulating the commission from executive interference and fulfilling Supreme Court directives on timely budgeting.
This provision fortifies INEC’s operational independence per Section 81(3) of the Constitution, reducing grounds for post-election petitions claiming resource shortages invalidated polls.
Yet, implementation disputes over fund disbursement could trigger suits against the Accountant-General, testing fiscal federalism doctrines.
Critics argue the fallback to manual collation under Form EC8A weakens transparency, potentially reviving vote-rigging claims in areas with poor connectivity. Judicially, this positions EC8A as the “primary source,” per Section 60(3), shifting the burden of proof in tribunals toward challengers disproving physical sheets’ integrity over electronic discrepancies.
Such duality may prolong litigation, as seen in 2023 cases, burdening the judiciary with reconciling tech failures against manual backups.
Overall, these amendments aim to fortify electoral integrity but risk protracted legal battles over interpretation, especially in contentious 2027 polls.
By embedding technology with safeguards, the law advances Nigeria’s jurisprudence on free, fair elections, yet its success hinges on consistent INEC enforcement and appellate court precedents clarifying ambiguities in transmission and primaries.
Stakeholders must brace for a litigious cycle testing the Act’s resilience against systemic challenges.