Nigeria's 2027 general elections are already at the center of dual controversies: the proposed election dates clashing with major religious observances and the ongoing debate over the electronic transmission of results within the Electoral Act amendments. These issues have ignited significant public concern regarding inclusivity, transparency, and the credibility of the democratic process.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced that the Presidential and National Assembly elections would be held on February 20, 2027, followed by the governorship and state assembly elections on March 6, 2027. These dates, however, have sparked widespread concern, particularly among Muslim communities, as they fall squarely within the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, projected to begin around February 7 and end by March 8, 2027. Prominent figures like former presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar and former presidential aide Bashir Ahmad have urged INEC to reconsider, emphasizing that fasting could significantly impact voter turnout and the efficiency of electoral officials, observers, and logistics. Additionally, the House of Representatives noted that the scheduled dates also coincide with the Christian Lenten season, commencing on Ash Wednesday, February 10, 2027, and concluding on March 27, further highlighting the widespread religious overlap.

INEC, responding to these concerns through National Commissioner Mohammed Haruna, affirmed that the timetable was drawn up in strict compliance with constitutional and legal provisions. Haruna cited the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022, which stipulate that presidential and National Assembly elections shall hold on the third Saturday of February of any general election year, with state elections two weeks thereafter. Despite this legal basis, INEC acknowledged the legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the coincidence with nationally recognized holidays and observances. The commission stated it is undertaking consultations and may, where necessary, seek appropriate legislative intervention to address these concerns, while ensuring any adjustments remain consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements. This commitment echoes a historical precedent from 2003 when INEC shifted general election dates following protests by Catholic bishops over a clash with Easter, demonstrating the commission's past responsiveness to religious sensitivities.

Parallel to the election date controversy, the National Assembly has been embroiled in debates over amendments to the Electoral Act 2022, with a critical focus on the electronic transmission of election results. This amendment is seen as a crucial credibility test for the 2027 elections. During the 2023 general elections, despite the deployment of BVAS devices and the IReV portal for uploading polling unit results, courts ruled that electronic transmission was not legally primary, as the Electoral Act 2022 granted INEC discretion over the 'manner' of result transfer rather than explicitly mandating electronic systems. This legal gap meant paper results remained legally superior, leaving electoral outcomes vulnerable to manipulation and eroding public trust.

To address this, National Assembly committees initially proposed a new Section 60(3) mandating electronic transmission of results to the IReV portal, in real-time, with witnesses present at polling units. This proposal aimed to make e-transmission obligatory and immediate, closing windows for manipulation. However, the Senate's handling of the amendment has been contentious. After initially rejecting the mandatory real-time electronic transmission on February 4, 2026, which sparked nationwide protests, the Senate passed a revised version of Clause 60(3) on February 10. This revised clause mandates electronic transmission of results to the IReV portal after Form EC8A is signed, but crucially, it removes the 'in real time' requirement and introduces a 'communication failure' exception, under which the manual Form EC8A becomes the primary source for collation and declaration of results.

This Senate version has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and civil society. The removal of 'in real time' is seen as creating significant delay windows, allowing presiding officers to theoretically transmit results hours or even days later, providing opportunities for external pressure or manipulation. Furthermore, the 'communication failure' exception is undefined; it lacks clear criteria for what constitutes such a failure, who determines it, or what proof is required. This ambiguity grants broad discretion, which critics like NBA Electoral Reform Committee Chairman Onyekachi Ubani warn could lead to prolonged litigation and undermine credibility. Public affairs commentator Ugo Inyama emphasized that 'mandatory clarity strengthens confidence' while 'discretion expands uncertainty,' arguing that connectivity challenges are engineering problems requiring robust solutions, not legal ambiguity. Mahdi Shehu, another commentator, went further, alleging that such provisions create a 'deliberate window for manipulation' and that the 2027 outcomes might be predetermined.

The designation of the manual Form EC8A as the 'primary source' when communication failure is claimed creates a problematic hierarchy where paper results could override electronic records, potentially conflicting with existing Section 64 of the Electoral Act, which requires collation officers to verify votes against electronically transmitted results. This could also place an undue burden of proof on petitioners challenging results.

In contrast, the House of Representatives passed a version that retains the 'in real time' requirement for immediate upload and avoids the broad 'communication failure' exception, thereby placing greater responsibility on INEC to ensure robust technological infrastructure. The differences between the House and Senate versions will now be reconciled by a conference committee. This harmonisation process is critical, as the final legislative language will determine whether Nigeria adopts a strong, enforceable framework for electronic transmission or a weaker one riddled with loopholes that could perpetuate manipulation and litigation.

Beyond these legislative intricacies, the underlying issue remains public trust in Nigeria's electoral institutions. While political parties like the PDP and ADC have expressed readiness for the elections, and the Northern Elders Forum commended INEC for the timely release of the timetable, there's a pervasive skepticism among citizens. Legislative expert Akinloye Oyeniyi noted that commencing the process with extant constitutional provisions narrows the chances of major constitutional or electoral act amendments. There are also broader calls for future reforms, including electronic collation alongside transmission and eventually electronic voting, to curb human interference and strengthen safeguards. As the 2027 elections approach, the success of these reforms hinges not just on technological implementation but on the legislative commitment to clear, unambiguous laws that prioritize transparency and restore public confidence in the democratic process.