The Nigerian political landscape has been embroiled in controversy following the Senate's decision to remove the mandatory electronic transmission of election results from the amended Electoral Act, ahead of the 2027 general election. This move, reported by DAILY POST, has ignited a fierce debate across the nation, with Nigerians, opposition parties, and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) vehemently urging lawmakers to reconsider and reverse their decision.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio, while speaking at the launch of former senator Effiong Bob's book, ‘The Burdens of Legislators in Nigeria’, staunchly defended the Senate's action, pushing back against critics. Akpabio asserted that it is the sole responsibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to determine the modalities for elections, including the deployment of technology. He explained that the decision to remove the 'real-time' mandate was a pragmatic one, citing that network connectivity is non-existent in nine out of Nigeria's 36 states due to prevailing insecurity. Mandating real-time transmission under such conditions, he argued, would invalidate election results in these areas and potentially across the nation if the national grid were to collapse, leading to widespread network failure.

Akpabio emphasized that the Senate's role is to make laws, not to conduct elections or deploy technology. He challenged critics to direct their grievances towards INEC, as the agency is responsible for implementing election technology. He further elaborated that the contentious clause was modified to remove the word 'real-time' specifically to prevent legal disputes arising from network glitches during elections. He referenced the 2000 United States presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, where electronic vote issues led to significant contention, as an example of how such mandates could destabilize a nation's democracy, particularly in a context like Nigeria.

Amidst the widespread outrage and calls for protests, with groups like 'Enough is Enough' mobilizing supporters under the hashtag #OccupyNASS, Akpabio dismissed his detractors as 'mouth legislators' who lack understanding of the lawmaking process. He asserted that the Senate would not be intimidated by criticism and would pass an Electoral Act that reflects the wishes of the generality of Nigerians, not just specific non-governmental organizations or outcomes from private retreats. He clarified that individuals could still use any preferred method for result transmission, including mobile phones or iPads, if network is available in their area, or even traditional methods like bicycles if they so choose, reiterating that the Senate did not remove the possibility of electronic transmission itself, but only the mandatory real-time aspect.

However, Akpabio's defense was met with counter-criticism. David Mark, the Interim National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and a former Senate President, stated that Akpabio should not speak on behalf of INEC. Mark argued that the Senate should simply pass the law allowing for electronic transmission of results and then allow INEC to determine its capability and timing for real-time implementation. He underscored that the public desires electronic transmission, and if INEC cannot perform real-time transmission, it is the commission's problem, not the Senate's to preemptively justify.

Adding another layer to the debate, some senators from the minority caucus, led by Abia South Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe, clarified that the Electoral Act amendment does, in fact, accommodate electronic transmission of election results. They suggested that the confusion stemmed from 'side conversations' during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, implying that the core provision for electronic transmission remains intact, despite the removal of the mandatory 'real-time' aspect.