(A Response to Senator Adegbomire & P. D. Pius)
By Sylvester Udemezue
*INTRODUCTION*
Two recent public commentaries have reignited debate on electoral reform in Nigeria. P.D. Pius, Esq., in his article titled, _“Electronic Transmission of Results is Not a Magic Wand”_ (and published on 10 February 2026), argues that electronic transmission is over-emphasised and is easily manipulable. He appears to regard electronic transmission as conterminous with electronic voting. On his part, distinguished Senator Niyi Adegbonmire, SAN, is reported to have argued that real-time transmission of results can only happen where e-voting exists, and since Nigeria does not practice electronic voting, e-transmission cannot apply to Nigeria (see _‘“Real-Time Transmission Can Only Happen With Electronic Voting, Nigeria Doesn’t Have E-Voting” – Senator Adegbonmire SAN On Electoral Act’_(12 February 2026). With utmost respect to both distinguished colleagues, these positions appear to arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of what “real-time electronic transmission” means within Nigeria’s electoral framework. This commentary therefore clarifies the concept, explains the relevant legal and technological realities, and addresses the issues for the benefit of stakeholders and Nigerians.
*WHAT “REAL-TIME ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION” ACTUALLY MEANS*
According to most standard English dictionaries, the expression “real-time” simply means happening immediately as something occurs, occurring without delay, taking place instantly and simultaneously. Accordingly, “real-time electronic transmission” means the instant electronic sending or receiving of information at the very moment it is produced, without delay.
*THE CRUCIAL QUESTION: TRANSMISSION OF WHAT?*
In the Nigerian context, considering distinguished Senator Adegbomire’s declaration, a crucial question may be asked as to exactly what is expected to be transmitted since Nigeria does not practice e-voting. This is where most confusion begins. To properly and accurately answer this question, it is important to state that, contrary to the impression the respected Senator tried to create, different electoral systems transmit different things. In countries practicing electronic voting, real-time e-transmission refers to e-transmission of votes themselves, and automatic computation of results. However, Nigeria does NOT practice electronic voting. Accordingly, real-time transmission in Nigeria cannot logically refer to transmitting of votes. But this does not mean that “real-time” transmission does not and cannot apply in the Nigerian context.
*HOW REAL-TIME E-TRANSMISSION APPLIES IN NIGERIA*
In Nigeria, what the law provides for is very specific: real-time electronic transmission of scanned copies of the duly completed and endorsed Polling Unit Result Sheet (known as Form EC8A). This means that immediately after voting ends at the polling unit, votes are counted and announced. Form EC8A is completed, signed and duly stamped, as required by law. The Form is then scanned electronically at the polling unit, and uploaded instantly to INEC’s IReV portal before officials leave the polling unit.
*FOUR ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF REAL-TIME E-TRANSMISSION IN THE NIGERIAN CONTEXT*
In my humble opinion, for e-transmission in the Nigerian context to truly qualify as “real-time,” four conditions must coexist:
1. *There must be transmission:* this means there must be some form of uploading or sending, or transfer.
2. *The subject of what is transmitted must be specific:* What must be transmitted is a scanned copy of the duly completed and signed Form EC8A.
3. *Transmission must be electronic:* This means that the transmission must occur digitally, not manually.
4. *Transmission must be “real-time”:* This means that the e-transmission of the scanned copy of the duly completed and signed Form EC8A must be done instantly, directly from the polling unit, immediately after signing, and before officials leave the polling unit for the collation centre.
*WHY THESE FOUR ELEMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL*
The four elements set out above must co-exist in order to eliminate post-voting human interference. Once a scanned copy of the duly completed and signed Form EC8A (result sheet) is digitally uploaded and instantly from the polling unit, it becomes publicly verifiable, tampering (with the hard copy of Form EC8A submitted at the collation) becomes futile, and electoral fraud becomes extremely difficult to perpetuate anytime afterwards.
*THREE DISTINCT MODELS OF E-TRANSMISSION EXIST WORLDWIDE*
A major source of misunderstanding is failure to distinguish between different forms of electronic transmission. In my respectful opinion, there exist three principal global models of electronic transmission of election results.
1. *MODEL ONE: Electronic Voting (e-Voting):* This is used in some countries (jurisdictions). Also, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has adopted it for its national officers’ elections. Basic features of this model include: (i) Votes are cast electronically; (ii) Results are generated automatically; and (iii) Transmission occurs simultaneously with voting. A major weakness of this model is that it is highly vulnerable/susceptible to hacking and coding manipulation. This is the system my learned friend, Mr. P. D. Pius mistook for to be the Nigerian model. Contrary to his supposition, Nigeria does NOT use this model.
2. *MODEL TWO: Manual Voting Plus Direct Entry of Raw Figures:* Essential features: (i) Votes are counted manually; (ii) the figures are manually entered into a digital system (in the same way one composes an email or WhatsApp message); and (iii) the raw numbers are then transmitted (just as one sends an email or uploads a message to a WhatsApp platform). A major weakness is that manipulation may occur during manual data entry into the digital system, before upload. For example, actual results showing Party A = 540 and Party B = 670 could be altered during entry by a compromised polling official (unless closely monitored by independent observers) to Party A = 940 and Party B = 360. This model is used in some countries, such as Kenya.
3. *Model Three: Upload of Scanned Result Sheets (Nigeria’s INEC Adopted Model):* This is Nigeria’s model. The process goes thus as provided in the Electoral Act, 2022: (i) Manual voting occurs at the polling unit; (ii) Votes are counted at the polling unit; (iii) Form EC8A is completed and signed at the polling unit; (iv) The form is scanned at the polling unit; and (v) The the scanned copy of Form EC8A is then digitally uploaded (e-transmitted) instantly to IReV (INEC’s online collation platform).
*WHY THE NIGERIAN MODEL IS THE MOST SECURE*
This model preserves physical evidence, ensures digital transparency, maintains multiple verification trails, and enhances public auditability. In sum, result manipulation becomes extremely difficult once polling officers leave the polling unit or at any time thereafter.
*WHY VAGUE LEGAL WORDING CAN DEFEAT ELECTORAL INTEGRITY*
I recently read a news report stating that a Senate Committee reportedly proposed that electronic transmission should occur “after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped.” The provision, as quoted in the report, reads: “The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IReV portal in real time, and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling agents available at the polling unit.” (See: _“How Three Southern Senators Blocked Real-Time Electronic Transmission of Election Results – Report,”_ published on 09 February 2026). With due respect, this wording is extremely and dangerously vague. Such a provision permits or envisages transmission (i) at the polling unit; or (ii) at collation centres; or (iii) outside the polling unit hours or days after the balloting. Thus, the law could be formally complied with and yet substantively abused. With due respect, real-time transmission will lose its meaning/essence if e-transmission can occur “after” results leave the polling unit. As I wrote earlier, the polling unit is the only stage in the electoral process where result sheet (Form EC8A) remains relatively protected from interference. Once Form EC8A leaves the polling unit, it becomes vulnerable to human discretion, logistical challenges, political pressure, and opacity. Therefore, if electronic transmission does not occur directly from the polling unit on election day and within the election time-frame, it loses its purpose. Transmission carried out after officials leave the polling unit, after manual collation has begun, or on a later date cannot prevent fraud; it merely digitizes a process that may already have been compromised.
*POST-VOTING PROCEDURES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT*
Under the Electoral Act, 2022, the requirement is that after voting ends at the polling unit, votes must be counted at the polling unit, and results must be announced publicly. Thereafter, and still at the polling unit, Form EC8A must be completed, signed, and stamped, and copies of the duly signed copy must be given to candidates or their agents immediately, after which the Form must be scanned, and the scanned copy immediately (in real time) e-transmitted to the iReV. A poster copy must be displayed at the polling unit. This stage marks the beginning of post-voting procedures, where real-time transmission logically belongs.
*SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS BY P.D. PIUS, ESQ.*
Two main claims were made by my learned friend, P.D Pius, Esq.:
1. First, he argued that electoral reform should start from party primaries. With due respect to my learned friend, both reforms are necessary, and there is nothing wrong with the two aspects of reform proceeding simultaneously. Electoral credibility and transparency must never be made to wait if the integrity of the process must be secured.
2. Second, my learned friend claims that electronic transmission is easier to rig. According to him, it may be far easier and cheaper to manipulate results through computer coding than to mobilize people to alter figures at ward level, something any technically knowledgeable person can confirm. With due respect, this claim is founded on a wrong premise; it conflates and confuses Nigeria’s model with electronic voting systems which Nigeria does not operate. Nigeria’s system only entails the transmission of the duly completed, signed and scanned result sheets (Form EC8A), not digital vote data. With due respect, manipulating the Nigerian system would require altering physical signed forms, multiple copies, publicly accessible records. And, this is far more difficult than manipulating manual collation, contrary to my learned friend’s claim.
*CONCLUSION*
From the foregoing, it is clear that (contrary to the learned Senator Adegbonmire’s claim) “real-time” electronic transmission of election results can effectively operate without e-voting under the Nigerian system. In Nigeria, “real-time” electronic transmission does not mean electronic voting; it means the instant electronic upload of duly completed, signed, and scanned polling-unit result sheet (Form EC8A) directly from the polling units to the iReV immediately after voting, before the Form (result sheet) is taken out of the polling unit. It is respectfully submitted that if made indispensable, this system would enhance transparency, credibility, electoral integrity, and public trust. The issue, therefore, is not technological feasibility but political will. As Kofi Annan rightly observed, “Elections are not just about who wins, but about the process by which the will of the people is expressed and respected.”
*Post Scriptum:*
The demand for real-time transmission is not partisan; it is a call for transparency, accountability, credibility, and democratic legitimacy. Nigeria would benefit from making it a strictly mandatory and non-negotiable legal requirement, with clear consequences, such that any election result not electronically transmitted in accordance with the law would be invalid. For the Nigerian model of electronic transmission to become mandatory, two steps are required: (a) the National Assembly must enact it into law, and (b) the Executive must assent to it. Ultimately, the choice is ours: either to embrace a new path toward electoral integrity or remain with practices that undermine credible democracy. As John C. Maxwell observed, life is defined by the choices we make, and we must be prepared to live with their consequences.
(Respectfully,
*Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)*
(Member, NBA’s Law Reform Committee)
08109024556, udemsyl@gmail.com.
(12 February 2026))
