The controversy over the electronic transmission of election results by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), is not a debate about technology alone. It is a defining question about the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy and the confidence citizens can place in the electoral process.
Nigeria’s electoral history makes this conversation unavoidable. The most disputed phase of our elections has often not been the voting itself. In many instances, ballots are cast peacefully, counted openly at polling units, and endorsed by party agents. The real tension begins at collation, when results move from polling units through wards and local governments to state and national centres. It is within this chain of custody that figures have been questioned, altered, or rendered suspect. This pattern has shaped public distrust more than any other single factor.
Electronic transmission of results directly from polling units addresses this long standing weakness. It reduces the layers of human discretion between the voter and the final declaration. It ensures that what is recorded at the polling unit is what reaches the central database. It creates a verifiable record that can be relied upon in the event of disputes. In a country where banking, commerce and sensitive communications are conducted electronically every day, it is difficult to justify resistance to real time transmission of election results. The issue is no longer feasibility but commitment.
Public confidence is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. Elections are not validated solely by the announcement of winners. They are validated when citizens, including those who supported other candidates, accept that the process was transparent and fair. Where transparency is weakened, legitimacy becomes fragile. Governance then begins under suspicion, and national cohesion suffers.
The National Assembly plays a decisive role in this matter. As the body responsible for electoral legislation, it has the authority to either strengthen or dilute the framework within which INEC operates. Efforts to condition or restrict electronic transmission naturally attract scrutiny. Lawmakers may frame such measures as safeguards, yet in a political environment marked by low trust, even procedural constraints can be interpreted as creating room for manipulation. Electoral laws must be written in a way that removes ambiguity rather than introduces it.
Civil society organisations, legal practitioners, youth movements and politically engaged citizens have sustained advocacy for transparent transmission of results. Their engagement has been rooted in experience. Manual collation has repeatedly produced disputes and litigation. Their demand is straightforward. Reduce the points where figures can be altered and strengthen the evidentiary value of what is declared. This is not agitation for its own sake but a call for institutional improvement.
Beyond the technical and legal dimensions lies the influence of ethnicity, religion and partisanship. Nigeria’s political culture has long been shaped by identity considerations. On major national issues, positions are often filtered through regional or partisan interest before being assessed on institutional merit. Electoral reform is not immune from this pattern. When proposals are perceived to affect the prospects of particular political blocs, reactions tend to align accordingly.
In this context, attention has been drawn to what appears to be a measured posture among sections of the Yoruba political elite regarding uncompromised electronic transmission. The present national leadership is of Yoruba origin. Some critics interpret the relative quietness of certain influential voices as a form of silent patriotism toward a government led by a kinsman. Whether this perception is entirely fair is open to debate. It may be that engagements are happening privately. It may also reflect differing assessments of the reform process. However, perception carries weight in politics. When institutional questions arise and influential actors appear restrained, it invites scrutiny about consistency.
The deeper concern is not ethnicity itself but selective defence of democratic standards. If transparency is demanded forcefully when one political bloc is out of power but approached cautiously when the balance shifts, democratic growth becomes cyclical. Institutions cannot mature on selective commitment. Standards must remain constant regardless of who occupies office.
Equally concerning is the near silence of opposition parties. Apart from a few prominent figures who have openly challenged any attempt to weaken electronic transmission, the broader opposition has not sustained a strong, coordinated voice on the issue. This stands in contrast to recent political history. Many members of the current administration were once at the forefront of challenging electoral processes under previous governments. They mobilised public opinion, insisted on reforms and framed electoral transparency as a national imperative when they were outside power.
Opposition parties today must recognise that vigilance is not optional. It is central to their democratic role. A credible opposition is expected to scrutinise policies and defend institutional safeguards, especially in matters as fundamental as election integrity. When opposition voices grow faint on issues that affect the credibility of the ballot, it weakens democratic balance. Silence can easily be interpreted as resignation or strategic indifference. Neither strengthens the republic.
This is not an argument for hostility or alarm. It is a call for responsibility across political lines. The credibility of elections is a shared national asset. Systems that reduce suspicion benefit not only today’s contenders but tomorrow’s aspirants. Once public confidence in the process erodes, it affects every political actor, regardless of affiliation.
Tribal loyalty, religious sentiment and party allegiance will continue to influence political behaviour in Nigeria. The challenge is to prevent these forces from overshadowing institutional integrity. Electronic transmission of results is not a cure for all electoral disputes, but it addresses a critical weakness that has historically undermined trust.
Nigeria requires elections that are not only conducted but believed. That belief rests on visible transparency and consistent standards. The legislature must legislate with clarity. The executive must demonstrate firm commitment. Opposition parties must rediscover their assertiveness. Political and intellectual elites across regions must defend democratic principles without hesitation.
Democratic confidence is built gradually and can be lost quickly. Protecting it requires consistency and courage beyond immediate political interest. Electronic transmission of election results is part of that responsibility. It is a necessary step toward strengthening electoral credibility and safeguarding the future of Nigeria’s democracy.