In today’s Nigeria, a paradox stares citizens in the face. With a few taps on a mobile phone, billions of naira move across accounts in seconds. Salaries are paid electronically, businesses rely on instant transfers and fintech platforms process transactions worth trillions annually. Yet, when it comes to transmitting election results which form the very foundation of democratic legitimacy, Nigeria’s political leadership appears hesitant, conflicted and, at times, contradictory. At the heart of this contradiction lies the controversy surrounding electronic transmission of election results by the National Assembly. The debate has exposed not just legal ambiguities but a deeper crisis of trust, consistency, and political will.
At the heart of the controversy is a misunderstanding which is sometimes genuine, often political, about what electronic transmission of election results actually means. Electronic transmission is not electronic voting. Voting still occurs physically at polling units, with ballots counted manually. What electronic transmission does is to simply send already-collated results from polling units to central servers in real time, reducing opportunities for manipulation during movement and collation. Yet, public discourse in electronic media, particularly on television platforms, has repeatedly blurred this distinction. Lawmakers and commentators often conflate electronic transmission with full-scale electronic voting systems, creating fear and skepticism where clarity is needed.
Recent amendments to Nigeria’s Electoral Act have introduced what many analysts describe as a “dual system” allowing both electronic and manual transmission of results according to prominent newspapers. On the surface, this appears flexible and pragmatic. In reality, it has created ambiguity. If electronic transmission is allowed but not mandatory, what happens when officials choose manual methods? What prevents bad actors from exploiting the manual fallback? Critics argue that this dual approach creates a loophole large enough to undermine the very transparency electronic transmission is meant to guarantee. Even more troubling is the concern that the “exception” (manual transmission) could become the norm, just as past safeguards were gradually weakened over time according to news reports.
Nigeria’s electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has consistently maintained that the country has the technical capacity for electronic transmission. In fact, INEC has spent over a decade piloting and refining election technologies from biometric voter accreditation to the Results Viewing Portal (iReV) according to media reports. According to the commission, the infrastructure, particularly the telecommunications network, is sufficiently developed to support nationwide transmission of results. Mobile network operators themselves have affirmed this capability. So, if the capacity exists, why the hesitation?
Proponents of electronic transmission often point to the banking sector. Nigerians transfer trillions of naira electronically every year. ATMs, POS systems and mobile apps function across urban and rural areas. Fintech adoption continues to grow rapidly. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, Nigeria’s fintech ecosystem has seen explosive growth, with digital transactions reaching massive volumes and widespread acceptance across the population. But critics of the comparison argue that elections are fundamentally different. Banking systems are centralised, with strong institutional control. Elections are decentralised, involving over 170,000 polling units. Financial errors can be reversed while electoral fraud cannot. While these distinctions are valid, they do not fully explain why a country capable of managing real-time financial systems struggles with transmitting static election results.
The deeper issue may not be technological at all but political. Electronic transmission reduces human interference. It eliminates opportunities for tampering during the movement of results from polling units to collation centres, a stage historically plagued by allegations of manipulation. This is precisely why many reform advocates insist on real-time transmission: to protect the integrity of the vote at its most vulnerable point. Civil society groups, legal bodies, and labour organisations have repeatedly argued that failure to mandate electronic transmission risks eroding public trust in elections according to Reuters. In this context, resistance to electronic transmission is often interpreted not as caution but as reluctance to relinquish control over a manipulable process. One of the most common arguments against mandatory electronic transmission is Nigeria’s uneven network coverage. Lawmakers have cited rural connectivity challenges and security concerns as reasons for caution.
However, experts counter that elections do not require continuous connectivity but only periodic data uploads, offline capture in which delayed transmission is feasible; similar challenges have been overcome in banking and telecommunications. Moreover, proposals have been made to allow presiding officers to move to nearby locations with better connectivity within a defined timeframe rather than reverting entirely to manual processes accordingly.
Perhaps the most significant consequence of this confusion is its impact on public trust. Nigerians have increasingly embraced digital systems in their daily lives. When elections lag behind, it creates a credibility gap. If banks can protect billions in cash transactions, why can’t votes be protected? If transactions can be tracked in real time, why not election results? This perception, whether technically accurate or not, shapes public confidence. And in a democracy, perception can be as powerful as reality.
To resolve the confusion and restore trust, several steps are critical. Electronic transmission must be clearly defined and, ideally, made the default not optional. Public education is essential to distinguish between electronic transmission and electronic voting. A nationwide audit of network readiness can address genuine concerns and dispel exaggerated ones. Ultimately, technology cannot fix what politics resists. Reform requires a genuine commitment to electoral integrity.
In conclusion, the question is no longer whether Nigeria can transmit election results electronically. Evidence suggests it can. The real question is whether it will. As long as ambiguity persists in law and intent, the confusion will remain and so will the doubts about the credibility of Nigeria’s elections. Banks have shown what is possible when systems are built for efficiency, transparency, and trust. They have played enormous roles in financial value chains. Elections must now rise to that same standard. Because in the end, democracy, like banking, runs on confidence. And without it, the entire system is at risk.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
Electronic transmission: Electoral umpires should learn from Nigerian banks