Tension In Senate As Lawmakers Pass Electoral Act Amendment Bill After Bitter Row Over E-Transmission Clause

Abuja, Nigeria — Nigeria’s Senate on Tuesday passed the Electoral Act, 2022 (Repeal and Re-Enactment) Bill, 2026, following hours of acrimonious debate, procedural wrangling, and a tense division over Clause 60, a key provision dealing with the electronic transmission of election results.

The passage of the bill came after a rowdy plenary that exposed deep divisions within the Red Chamber over whether manual transmission of results should be allowed in the event of failure of electronic systems.

Proceedings took a dramatic turn when Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a division on Clause 60, triggering loud protests and confusion on the floor.

Channels Television reports that Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially ruled that the demand had earlier been withdrawn, a position immediately challenged by opposition lawmakers.

Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, rising on Order 52(6) of the Senate Standing Orders, argued that it was out of order to revisit any matter already ruled upon by the Senate President.

His intervention only deepened tensions in the chamber, as lawmakers shouted objections and engaged in heated exchanges.

In the midst of the uproar, Senator Sunday Karimi was seen briefly confronting Abaribe, adding to the charged atmosphere on the floor of the Senate.

Seeking to calm frayed nerves, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele reminded his colleagues that he had sponsored the motion for rescission of the earlier passage of the bill, stressing that all previous decisions of the Senate on the matter had been nullified.

He insisted that Abaribe’s demand for a division was therefore consistent with the rescission motion duly adopted by the chamber.

Akpabio, however, suggested that the insistence on a division was an attempt by Abaribe to publicly dramatise his position on the contentious clause before Nigerians. Despite this remark, the Senate President sustained the point of order, prompting Abaribe to rise in protest before being advised to formally move his motion.

Rising under Order 72(1), Abaribe demanded a division on Clause 60(3), particularly the provision stating that where electronic transmission of results fails, Form EC8A should not be relied upon as the sole basis for collation.

He argued that the clause effectively legitimised manual transmission and opened the door to electoral manipulation, proposing its outright removal.

When the division was finally conducted, Akpabio directed senators in support of the proviso to stand, followed by those opposed. Fifteen opposition senators stood against the clause, while a clear majority backed it.

At the end of the count, 55 senators voted in favour of retaining the proviso, with 15 voting against it.

Earlier in the session, Senate proceedings had been temporarily stalled as lawmakers commenced clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after adopting a motion to rescind its earlier amendment.

The motion was formally seconded, allowing the Senate to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole for a detailed reconsideration and re-enactment of the legislation.

As Akpabio read out the clauses for deliberation, Clause 60 again became the flashpoint. Abaribe raised a point of order, triggering murmurs across the chamber and prompting intense consultations at the Senate President’s desk. This eventually led to a brief closed-door session.

Before agreeing to rescind the Electoral Act, several senators raised concerns about the timing of the 2027 general elections and what they described as technical and drafting inconsistencies in the bill.

Rising again on Order 52(6), Bamidele moved the motion to reverse the earlier passage of the bill and return it to the Committee of the Whole.

He explained that the action followed the announcement by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) fixing the 2027 general elections for February 2027 after consultations with the leadership of the National Assembly.

According to Bamidele, stakeholders warned that the proposed election date conflicted with the legal requirement under Clause 28 of the bill, which mandates that elections be held at least 360 days before the expiration of the tenure of elected officials.

He further noted that conducting elections during the Ramadan period could negatively affect voter turnout, logistics, stakeholder participation, and the overall inclusiveness and credibility of the electoral process.

The Senate Leader also listed numerous discrepancies in the bill’s Long Title and several clauses, including Clauses 6, 9, 10, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 42, 47, 51, 60, 62, 64, 65, 73, 77, 86, 87, 89, 93, and 143.

The lawmakers  said the errors affected cross-referencing, serial numbering, and internal consistency, necessitating urgent legislative correction.