Electoral Act 2026 -- Ambiguities, Unclear Sections, And Contradicting Sections
Here are some of the salient points and comments and questions about the ambiguities and contradictions which are noticed inside the newly enacted “Electoral Act 2026”
Please, download the Electoral Act 2026 using the link below:
This is going to be a long thread, but I promise you that it is going to be very interesting, very enlightening, and VERY EYE-OPENING.!!
SO,, LET'S GO.!!
Section: 25(2)(g)
Question:
In this sub-section, the Electoral Act says: “The returning officer shall announce the result and declare the winner of the election at - the State Collation Center in the case of a Presidential election...”
So, is this sub-section implying that the “State Collation Officer” in a “Presidential Election” can actually announce and declare the WINNER of the Presidential Election at the State Collation Level.??
Section: 29(5)
Comment-1:
This sub-section is not fair to the candidates from other parties -- who cannot even question the authenticity of the documents that are submitted by a candidate of any particular party -- especially when ALL the supposed aspirants in the candidate’s party have chosen not to contest the authenticity of the candidate’s documents due to their supposed Loyalty to their Party, and for the purpose of the success of their Party.
(The Nigerian Law-Makers should explain why they left that sub-section so narrow and so tight.)
Section: 29(5) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
This sub-section is actually a constitutional matter (see also the Section: 85 of the Electoral Act).
Thus, any of the other contesting parties can use the supremacy of the constitution over that particular Section: 29(5) of the Electoral Act -- adding the fact that the co-contesting parties are also interested parties in the matter. The other contesting parties can establish their "locus-standi" in the case, and then drag the candidate of the particular party to court on constitutional grounds, even though they are not members of the party, and that they did not contest in the primaries with the candidate.
This particular court process should be done clearly before the conduct of the election -- That-is, after the INEC had just finished publishing the documents of the candidates of the various parties.
This is because, the matter is supposed to be a pre-election matter -- and it also means that it should not be brought up in the Election Petition Tribunal.
Section: 29(5) -- (continued)
Comment-3:
“Forgery” is totally different from “Perjury” -- (that is, “telling lies on oath”) -- which is a criminal case.
For criminal cases, the police would first investigate the matter, and then drag the matter to court before trial can commence against the person.
In such a case, persons that are protected by immunity clauses cannot be dragged to court, because the case is a criminal case.
But in the case of “forgery and false documents” which is a constitutional matter in this case it does not require the police to be the ones to take the matter to court.
An interested party can take the matter to court.
And again, persons who are protected by immunity clauses are not shielded from being sued to court when the case is a clear constitutional matter.
Section: 29(5) -- (continued).
Question:
The question here now is -- “According to the Act, does it mean that it is ONLY an aspirant who co-participated in the primaries of the political party with the candidate who won the primaries can question the authenticity of the DOCUMENTS which were submitted by the candidate who won??”
“Does that also mean that not even the INEC can question the authenticity of such documents -- even when the forgery is very bare and obvious?”
What then is the need for the “Public Disclosure” of the documents of the candidate in Section:29(3), when it is of no use to the public?
Section: 29(7)
Question:
This sub-section somehow already assumed that the candidate and the party that was disqualified in sub-section: (6) actually “WON” the election which had already been held before the courts passed their final judgement.
So, what if a situation occurred where the candidate and party that was disqualified in sub-section: (6) DID NOT WIN the election, & judgement was later passed; would the order for INEC to conduct a fresh election still hold.?
Or would it be presumed that the judgement had been overtaken by events?
Section: 47(2)
Question:
Why is it that the “Number of Accredited Voters” that were automatically captured and stored inside the “Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device” were not also mandated to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal??
(This question became necessary since the sub-Section: 60(3) of the Electoral Act mandated that the “results” were to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal).
So, why were the “Number of Accredited Voters” Not also mandated to be electronically transmitted too?
Section: 50(2)
Question:
If Section:60(3) has already specified the method of transmitting the results, why would this section still come back again to mention that “..transmission of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission.”?
Section: 60(3)
Comment-1:
It is very necessary for us to note that the term “Form EC8A” was not explained or described in the Electoral Act to mean the “Polling Unit Result Sheet” in any way.
Even though the Electoral Act mentioned that the “Form EC8A” contains some form of results which can be used for collation, the Act didn't describe the “Form EC8A” to be the “Result Sheet at the Polling Units”.
The term “Form EC8A” in the Act could mean anything, since it is not sufficiently described. It could mean a “Poster-Form” on which the Results could be written upon, and be pasted on the wall at the venue of voting - and can also be used as the primary source of data for collation and declaration of results.
This also means that, if the INEC changes the name or the code which they currently used to represent the Polling-Unit Result Sheets -- from “Form EC8A” to a new name or code -- in all future elections; then, that would render the term “Form EC8A” totally useless inside the Electoral Act, since it would become a totally non-existent entity -- both inside the Electoral Act 2026 and in everywhere else -- owing to the fact that it was not fully described in the Act -- only the technical name “Form EC8A” and its partial functions were given in the Act.
Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
The term “IREV Portal”, even though it was not directly defined, was given a fully implied meaning when the Act stipulated that “the Electronically Transmitted Results would be transmitted to the IREV Portal”.
From the implied meaning, the “IREV Portal” is definitely supposed to mean an electronic “web portal” where the results from the polling units are electronically transmitted to.
Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-1:
The law clearly stipulates that “Communication Failure” is the ONLY Reason why a transmitted result cannot be seen immediately on the IREV Portal.
Thus, the question here is: “what then happens if INEC brings up some other man-made or third-party excuses for the delay in seeing the results appearing on the IREV Portal??
For instance, some excuses such as “two-factor authentication by a Ward-Officer”, “GLITCHES”, Unforeseen and unplanned delays of the transmitted results to appear on the IREV Portal.
What is supposed to happen when such situations arise?”
Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-2:
If the “electronic transmission of the result” fails as a result of some other unforseen or deliberate mistakes or errors that were made by the staff of INEC (and were not caused by “Communication Failure” -- which could be clearly regarded as a situation beyond the control of INEC) what should be done?
Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-3:
At what point would it be deemed fit for it to be accepted that the “electronic transmission of the result has failed as a result of communication failure, and that it has become impossible to transmit the result”?
(This question above simply means that the Presiding Officer must have tried the transmission at-least ONCE, and it did not show on the IREV Portal. The presiding officer cannot just announce that there is no network and then refuse to do the transmission -- if he does that, then he is clearly going against the Electoral Act 2026).
Section: 60(5)
Comment:
The word “transmit” (as defined or explained in Section:155) could either be done MANUALLY or ELECTRONICALLY.
Therefore, wherever and whenever the term “Electronic Transmission” is intended, the full phrase of “Electronic Transmission” must be clearly written.
Otherwise, the lone word “transmission” would easily be assumed to mean “MANUAL TRANSMISSION”.
Section: 60(5) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
The Act did not specify that the presiding officer AT THE POLLING UNIT would give copies of the Result-Sheets to the Police Officer & the Polling Agents that are present.
Section: 62(1)
Question:
If according to Section:60(5) of the Electoral Act, that the results had already been “Transmitted to the next level of collation”, (which could already be regarded as “Manual Transmission”), why then is the Electoral Act repeating the exact same procedures again in Section:62(1) using another rephrased language.??
(Unless (perhaps) the Section:60(5) was intended to mean “Electronic Transmission”, and not just “Transmission” (or “Manual Transmission”), then it means that Section:62(1) is actually different from Section:60(5).)
But as of now,, Section:62(1) is just a rephrasing of Section:60(5).
Section: 62(3)
Comment:
Even though the Electoral Act stated that the electronic database should be updated “on a continuous basis”, there is need for the Act to state how soon -- after any concluded election -- that the results of the election would be updated in the database -- such that anybody who is interested in getting a copy of the results can wait until such timelines have elapsed, and then, the person would apply to get the electronic copy of such results that were related to the concluded election -- which were uploaded and stored on the electronic database -- and get the electronic copy.
Section: 62(3) -- (continued)
Question:
Are there no penalties for INEC if there are concluded elections whose results are not stored on the electronic database -- even after one month had passed after that election was concluded, but the database was not updated on the electronic database yet?
Section: 62(4)(b)
Question:
The wrong referencing of “Section:60(4)” inside Section:62(4)(b) is very confusing. It is either that the clause referred to Section:60(3) or to Section:60(5).
So, which one exactly is supposed to be referenced.??
Why did the Act “Section:60(4)” at all - in the first place??
Section: 68
Question:
How soon after the conclusion of the election is the INEC required to publish the final summary of the results of the concluded election on their website?
And what would be the penalty if the INEC failed to publish the final results within such timelines?
Section: 71(1)
Question:
Why is it that the duplicate copies of “..the collated result which were completed at the ward, local government, state and national levels of collation..” were to be given to the police officers and the polling agents; but these same collated results were not mandated by the Electoral Act to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal as well -- just as was the case with the polling unit results in section:60(3)?
(The collated results are supposed to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal too).
Section: 137(3)(a)&(b).
Question:
This section of the Act says that where a petitioner complains about the conduct of an electoral officer, a presiding officer, returning officer, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO JOIN SUCH OFFICERS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT but rather, the commission shall be made a respondent, and be DEEMED TO BE DEFENDING THE PETITION FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS OFFICERS OR SUCH OTHER PERSONS.
But in the Paragraph--51(1) of the “First Schedule”, the Act says that when the election petition complains about the conduct of an electoral officer, a presiding officer, returning officer, or any other official of the commission, he shall be DEEMED TO BE A RESPONDENT, AND BE JOINED IN THE ELECTION PETITION AS A NECESSARY PARTY.
These two provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 are clearly contradicting themselves.
So the question here is...
“Which one out of these two contradicting provisions of the “Electoral Act 2026” would be taken as the substantial law?”
..
Now that I have finished listing out the issues which I discovered with the Newly Enacted “Electoral Act 2026”....... Only two things are now left to be done.
1. It's either that the National Assembly members go back and amend the “Electoral Act 2026” in such a way to answer all these “Questions” without further ambiguities..
...Or...
2. That some spirited citizens (or knowledgeable politicians) should pick up these “Questions” and head to any “Federal High Court” in the country for Further Interpretations, and for the issuance of necessary “Court Orders” to the INEC.
This Second Option Is Very Risky Though..
But nevertheless,,
..Rather than heading towards the next elections with a very confusing “Electoral Act” - without doing anything about it - then it is better to at-least head to the courts early enough, in order to know exactly where the Electoral Act truly stands in the eyes of the law -- and thus, minimize ambiguities.
No comments
Post a Comment