Electronic half-measure

Hardball

In its present form as widely reported, the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill about to be passed by the National Assembly effectively reduces Nigeria’s balloting system to electronic half-measure. While the bill enables the system on one hand by endorsing electronic voting, it hampers it on the other hand by forbidding transmission of results by electronic means that many consider a necessity to enhance the sanctity of the ballot.

The version of the bill about to be ticked off by the Senate chamber has a sub-section outlawing electronic transmission of results by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which flies against the consensus of stakeholders at consultations held by the lawmakers to source public input to the legislation. Section 50(2) states: “Voting at an election under this Bill shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission, which may include electronic voting, PROVIDED that the Commission shall not transmit results of elections by electronic means.” Senate has not denied the existence of this provision; even though the House of Representatives, whose committee working on the bill is yet to submit its report, has poured cold water on the alarm over the alleged clause saying it would not assume what the committee has not reported.

It is unclear how this provision got into the draft bill – at least, the Senate’s version – as all stakeholders have disclaimed it as inverting what was generally agreed upon as the way to go in securing Nigerian elections against manipulation. Even some members of the Senate Committee on INEC led by Senator Kabiru Gaya, which worked on the bill for the red chamber, were reported describing the provision as ‘strange’ and indicating intention to raise objections to it at plenary. The clause is formulated to upend advances made in the conduct of elections by INEC that piloted electronic transmission of results in some recent elections, notably the September 2020 Edo State governorship poll, to the admiration of many. The commission has often voiced determination to fully adopt technology, including collation and transmission of results by electronic means, urging NASS to provide statutory backing for the move in line with global best practice.

Since news emerged about the controversial section 50(2), political parties, civil society actors and opinion leaders have all rejected the provision. Some accused the legislature of smuggling it into the final draft to hamstrung INEC’s efforts at strengthening its election management processes. And they would be right unless the NASS unravels how the controversial clause came about and hold its architects accountable. More importantly, the clause should be expunged as an alien interloper that it is before the bill gets passed by the legislative chambers. This ambuscade reenacts how, during the Electoral Act 2010 amendment, Section 31(1) was introduced forbidding INEC from disqualifying any candidate nominated by political parties “for any reason whatsoever” – a clause that has been an albatross on the commission’s efforts to hold the parties to internal democracy. We can’t have another such shenanigan.