Why e-transmission dust must settle before 2027

NIGERIA is once again arguing about whether election results should be transmitted electronically from polling units in real time. At first glance, this sounds technical. Network strength. Server capacity. Connectivity gaps. Legal wording. Beneath the technical vocabulary lie deeper questions: Do we want elections whose outcomes are traceable, verifiable, and difficult to manipulate? Or do we want elections that still leave room for “adjustments” between the polling units and the final collation centres? Recent comments by a former Resident Electoral Commissioner, Barr. Mike Igini, have brought this issue back into sharp focus. His warning is not about gadgets. It is about credibility. He argues that weakening mandatory electronic transmission risks eroding public trust ahead of 2027. This is not a minor legislative tweak. It is about whether Nigeria moves forward or backwards in electoral transparency. I do not claim expertise in electoral technology. I am neither an engineer nor an INEC official. I occupy the office of a citizen … concerned enough to invite us to reason together.

When the rules governing the transfer of power become unclear, everyone should pay attention. If anyone believes this conversation is exaggerated or premature, they only need to revisit the theatrics that unfolded during the recent elections in Abuja. Confusion, accusations, narrative battles, and public distrust filled the air long before final declarations were settled. That alone shows this is not a technical footnote. It is a stability question. Electoral credibility is not a cosmetic issue. It belongs in the national security infrastructure. When citizens believe their votes count, they invest in ballots. When they believe outcomes are negotiable, frustration seeks other channels. No country can sustainably police its way out of democratic distrust. The cheapest form of stability is credible elections. Many Nigerians hear “e-transmission” and imagine fully automated polls. That is not the case. Voting remains manual. Ballots are counted manually at the polling units. Party agents and observers are present. The result is entered on Form EC8A and jointly signed by all of those concerned. The difference comes after counting. Under real-time electronic transmission, the presiding officer uploads a photograph or scanned copy of the polling unit result directly to INEC’s central server and the public viewing portal. That means the result becomes visible almost immediately.

Historically, the greatest and most recurring vulnerabilities in Nigerian elections have little to do with the polling units. It’s more to do with the collations. When results move physically (offline) from polling units to the wards, to the local governments and to the states, they pass through multiple hands. Each stage creates opportunities … and opportunities in a weak system invite unwholesome interferences. Electronic transmission reduces that ugly window, creating a digital timestamp, a public record, and a trail. That is not perfection, but it is protection. The argument against mandatory e-transmission usually rests on infrastructure concerns, such as poor network coverage, power outages, and rural connectivity. Legitimate as they are, these concerns must be tested against evidence. After all, Nigeria conducts electronic banking across remote communities, SIM registration is centralised, BVN verification works nationwide, telecommunications companies operate 3G and 4G networks covering most populated areas, and INEC uploads voter registration data and has tested electronic transmission before. If we can electronically verify bank transfers in real time, why can’t we transmit a polling unit result sheet? The deeper concern may not be connectivity, but control. Manual collation allows discretion. Discretion allows negotiation. Negotiation allows influence. Technology narrows discretion. And systems built on discretionary power rarely surrender it willingly.

READ ALSO: E-transmission of election results: Matters arising

If the legal framework remains ambiguous going into 2027, several consequences are predictable: Voter turnout rate will drop further. Litigations will multiply. Every disputed election will centre on whether electronic transmission was required or optional. Public trust will decline further. Citizens already sceptical of outcomes will interpret delays or technical failures as manipulation. Post-election unrest may intensify. Where transparency is weak, conspiracy fills the vacuum. International credibility will decline. Electoral observers evaluate transparency architecture, not speeches. Nigeria cannot afford another credibility crisis in 2027. This e-transmission controversy exposes something larger than election procedure. It reveals how reform is often negotiated in fragments rather than explained in full. The public watched as tensions flared within both chambers of the national parliament over electronic transmission, with amendments proposed, resisted, reframed, and debated in ways that appeared more political than technical. The optics were troubling. When lawmakers publicly clash over transparency mechanisms without clearly communicating the evidence behind their positions, citizens are left to interpret motive rather than substance. Democratic reform must not feel improvised or strategic. It must be evidence-driven and transparent. If parliamentarians believe electronic transmission is impractical, they must publish the data supporting that claim. If INEC believes it is feasible, it must present detailed technical assessments and infrastructure mapping. Democracy does not run on assumptions. It runs on clarity. If Nigeria is serious about credible elections, the following steps are urgent:

1. Make real-time e-transmission the legal default: The Electoral Act should stipulate that electronic transmission from polling units is mandatory, not conditional. Where connectivity fails, the presiding officer should be required to post and/or move to the nearest viable transmission point within a defined time window. Ambiguity is the enemy of credibility. 2. Publish a National Connectivity Audit for Elections. INEC, with the Nigerian Communications Commission and mobile network operators, should release a publicly accessible map showing transmission readiness by polling unit cluster. Transparency builds confidence. 3. build redundancy systems: Where network gaps exist, satellite uplink devices or portable signal boosters can be deployed. Other developing democracies use layered redundancy to protect election data. Failure planning is part of system design, after all. 4. Conduct nationwide public education: Citizens must understand how results move from the polling unit to the final declaration. The more voters understand the chain, the harder it becomes to manipulate it quietly. Democracy requires informed participants. 5. Establish criminal penalties for deliberate non-transmission: If a presiding officer fails to upload without a documented technical reason, clear sanctions must follow. Rules without enforcement are decorative.

Nigeria’s democratic future will not be determined only by who wins the polls. It will be determined by whether citizens believe those wins are legitimate. (See the rest on www.tribuneonlineng.com)

Technology is not magic. It cannot repair weak institutions or substitute for political will. But it can narrow the space for abuse. And in fragile democracies, narrowing that space is meaningful progress. Nigeria is not technologically barren. According to data from the Nigerian Communications Commission, the country has over 200 million active mobile subscriptions, with penetration extending deep into rural communities. Millions of Nigerians in villages conduct mobile transfers, receive alerts, use USSD codes, and verify identities electronically. Market women process digital payments. Farmers check prices on basic phones. Technology already mediates daily economic life far beyond major cities.

The question before us, then, is not whether electronic transmission is perfect. It is whether we are prepared to apply the same digital confidence we rely on in banking and commerce to the protection of our votes.

When results are clear at the source, they do not need to be defended later. When votes are protected at the polling units, democracy becomes harder to manipulate.

If we get this wrong now, 2027 will not revolve around campaigns. It will revolve around credibility. And credibility, once lost, is far more expensive to rebuild than any server infrastructure.

•Ukoh, an alumnus of the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and PhD student at Columbia University, writes in from New York.