New concerns emerge about 2027 elections: Former REC highlights 'troubling' provisions in Electoral Act 2026

Mr Mike Igini, a lawyer and former Resident Electoral Commissioner in Edo and Akwa Ibom states, has been a vocal advocate for a transparent electoral system since his departure from the electoral body, and his efforts have been focused on promoting the rule of law, due process, and the sanctity of electoral integrity.

n

According to Igini, free, fair, and credible elections are the foundation of democracy, and if votes do not count, elections become a mere ritual without any real choice, emphasizing the importance of transparently credible, legally defensible, and publicly trusted elections.

n

Igini expressed disappointment that despite his ten years of service at the Independent National Electoral Commission, the issues he addressed during his tenure, such as the sabotage of result transmission and the IREV system used successfully in 105 off-season elections, including five governorship elections, are still being debated.

n

The 2026 Electoral Act, which Igini meticulously reviewed, contains provisions that constitute deliberate structural vulnerabilities, capable of undermining the credibility and integrity of the 2027 general elections, giving him a sense of despair and frustration.

n

Igini identified specific provisions in the Electoral Act 2026, such as Sections 49, 53, and 68, which were previously repealed but have been re-introduced, allowing for discretionary powers to be given to presiding officers, making it easier for elections to be rigged.

n

For example, Section 49 used the word "satisfied" to determine whether a presiding officer should issue a ballot paper to a voter, without providing an objective test, making it easy for compromised presiding officers to rig elections.

n

The introduction of the Card Reader in 2011 was meant to confirm and authenticate the fingers of every voter, but the re-emergence of these provisions in the 2026 Electoral Act undermines this effort and creates a sense of going back to square one.

n

Igini specifically highlighted Sections 63, 65, 137, and 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 as "dangerous" and capable of undermining the credibility of the forthcoming elections, as they provide a sense of arbitrariness and discretion to presiding officers.

n

Section 63, for instance, allows a Presiding Officer to accept ballot papers without the official mark, security features, or authentication prescribed by INEC, as long as they are "satisfied" as to their authenticity, which Igini sees as a fundamental assault on electoral certainty.

n

This provision creates a dangerous latitude for arbitrariness, allowing unauthorized ballot papers to be introduced into the electoral process, and Igini warns that this could lead to systemic manipulation.

n

Section 138 provides legal immunity for non-compliance with INEC directives, regulations, and guidelines, which Igini views as a clear example of statute sabotage, striking at the heart of electoral governance and rendering INEC's operational framework effectively optional.

n

This provision introduces a dangerous dichotomy between law and enforcement, allowing election officials to disregard procedural safeguards with impunity, and Igini argues that it is an institutional vulnerability deliberately codified.

n

Section 137, which deals with election petition tribunals, provides that Presiding Officers and Returning Officers do not need to be joined as respondents in a petition, even if they are alleged to have engaged in misconduct, which Igini sees as a troubling provision that undermines individual accountability.

n

This provision shields individual actors from direct legal scrutiny, diffusing responsibility into an amorphous institutional abstraction, and creating a perverse incentive structure where those who perpetrate irregularities are protected, while the institution bears the burden.

n

A proviso in the 2022 Act, which was removed from the 2026 Act, had provided that once an INEC document is certified, it shall not be necessary to call oral evidence, and parties can make addresses on the document, but with its removal, Igini fears that the law will revert to the old practice of requiring oral evidence.

n

Igini's final thoughts are that these provisions, taken cumulatively, represent a coherent architecture of vulnerability, introducing discretion where certainty is required, conferring immunity where accountability is essential, and obscuring responsibility where clarity is indispensable.

n

He urges the National Assembly to take steps to repeal these provisions before the election, emphasizing that a stone seen coming should not blind the eyes, and that the rule of law requires not only the supremacy of regular law but also the equal subjection of all classes to that law.

n

Igini's core message to political party leaders is to assume a greater role of urgency in approaching the National Assembly for the immediate repeal of the identified obnoxious provisions, not only as a political demand but also as a constitutional imperative.

n

He challenges them to demonstrate exemplary conduct and discipline, to show Nigerians what they can do differently from their opponents in terms of candidate selection, and to engage the process with legal vigilance, deploying agents who understand both procedure and evidence.