Contrary to widespread public perception that the National Assembly is united against electoral transparency, Senator Ireti Kingibe has disclosed that an overwhelming 85 per cent of senators support electronic transmission of election results under the ongoing Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, effectively puncturing claims that the Senate is deliberately blocking reforms.
Speaking amid growing national outrage over the refusal of the Senate to explicitly mandate real-time electronic transmission of results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), Senator Kingibe clarified that the problem is not a lack of legislative support, but rather the fine-print politics of drafting, interpretation, and institutional power struggles within the lawmaking process.
According to the senator, the dominant narrative that the Senate as a body is hostile to e-transmission is misleading and inaccurate. “The majority of senators support electronic transmission of results,” she stated, stressing that support cuts across party lines and regional blocs.
Support Exists, But the Wording Is the Battlefield
Senator Kingibe explained that while there is broad agreement on the principle of electronic transmission, contention arises around how the provision is framed in law. Instead of a clear, mandatory clause compelling real-time uploads from polling units, the Senate adopted wording that leaves implementation “to the discretion of INEC.”
This discretion, critics argue, is precisely the loophole that undermined public confidence during the 2023 general elections, when delays, selective uploads, and inconsistencies between physical result sheets and the IReV portal fueled allegations of manipulation.
Kingibe’s intervention reframes the debate: the issue is not mass opposition to transparency, but a failure to translate consensus into iron-clad legal safeguards.
Why the Public Still Feels Betrayed
Despite the senator’s clarification, public distrust remains intense. For many Nigerians—particularly youths and civil society groups—the absence of mandatory, real-time transmission amounts to a deliberate weakening of the electoral process, regardless of behind-the-scenes support.
Activists argue that in electoral law, intent without enforcement is meaningless. They insist that only an explicit legal obligation—without discretionary escape clauses—can guarantee transparency in a system long plagued by institutional interference and post-election litigation.
This disconnect between legislative intent and legislative outcome has fueled movements such as #NoIReVNo2027, with critics accusing the political class of speaking reform while legislating ambiguity.
A Senate Divided by Power, Not Principle
Kingibe’s disclosure also exposes a deeper structural issue within Nigeria’s lawmaking process: a small but powerful bloc can shape outcomes even when the majority agrees on substance. Committee negotiations, leadership influence, and executive considerations often determine final wording—sometimes at odds with the prevailing sentiment on the Senate floor.
This reality raises uncomfortable questions about democratic representation within the legislature itself:
If 85 per cent of senators support electronic transmission, why does the final bill not reflect that clearly and unequivocally?
What Happens Next
Attention now shifts to the House of Representatives and the eventual conference committee that will harmonize both chambers’ versions of the bill. Reform advocates argue this stage presents a final opportunity to remove ambiguity and entrench mandatory real-time transmission.
Civil society groups are also calling on senators who privately support e-transmission to publicly defend it, warning that silence enables mistrust and fuels the perception of elite conspiracy against the electorate.
A Test of Political Courage
Senator Kingibe’s statement complicates the prevailing narrative but does not absolve the legislature of responsibility. For many Nigerians, the standard is no longer verbal support but clear law, enforceable rules, and visible accountability.
As the 2027 elections draw closer, the credibility of the entire democratic process may hinge on whether lawmakers are willing to convert overwhelming support into unambiguous legal guarantees—or allow technical language to once again determine political destiny.
In the end, the question before the National Assembly is simple:
If 85 per cent truly support electronic transmission, will the law finally reflect the will of both legislators and the people?
