A coalition of Civil Society Organisations has formally responded to President Bola Tinubu’s enactment of the Electoral Act 2026, stating that the National Assembly’s failure to resolve existing loopholes and ambiguities in the legislation represents a missed opportunity for comprehensive electoral reform ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The Coalition, consisting of the Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), The Kukah Centre, the International Press Centre (IPC), ElectHer, the Nigerian Women Trust Fund, TAF Africa, and Yiaga Africa, announced this development in a joint statement issued on February 19th, 2026.

Despite the controversy surrounding the amendment of the new electoral law, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act 2026 into law after lengthy deliberation. The National Assembly had ignored public concerns about the law before its assent. One of the sections proposed for amendment in the legislation, which raised public concerns, is the mandatory real-time electronic transmission of the election results.

While the debate and protests on the matter were still ongoing, President Tinubu’s signing of the bill into law without wholly conforming to public demand has attracted mixed reactions from civil society organisations, stating that the lawmakers’ avoidance of heeding Nigerians further poses a threat to the fragile confidence in the country’s electoral system, as the passed law may not have decisively strengthened transparency, eliminated ambiguities, and deepened.

The coalition further stated that while the discussions on the electoral reform were ongoing, the aforementioned civil society organisations engaged with the lawmakers and submitted memoranda during the public hearings and engaged publicly and privately for specific amendments that would have strengthened the integrity, inclusiveness, and accountability of Nigeria’s electoral framework.

The coalition maintained that while some of those calls were heeded, many of their recommendations were not, as the law now leaves dangerous loopholes unaddressed and introduces new barriers to political participation. They also decried the rushed legislative process; without exhibiting transparency, the lawmakers refused to publish the harmonised documents of the two chambers of the National Assembly.

They observed that the actions of the lawmakers to rush the process were to avoid scrutiny or structured debate, stressing that they are inconsistent with the transparency standards expected in democratic lawmaking. The coalition further argued that the legitimacy of any law depends not only on its content but on the openness and credibility of the process through which it is enacted, but failure to do that is an attempt to erode public confidence.

“This fundamentally violates the principle of informed legislative consent and weakens parliamentary accountability. Debate on critical clauses, including provisions relating to real-time electronic transmission of results, was reportedly curtailed. Legislative changes introduced in the final hours before a vote, without publication, scrutiny, or structured debate, are inconsistent with the transparency standards expected in democratic lawmaking. Members cannot meaningfully legislate on provisions they have not reviewed in their final form, and the public cannot engage in a process from which it is excluded. Electoral law is the architecture of democratic competition.

Its legitimacy depends not only on its content but also on the openness and credibility of the process through which it is enacted. When reforms are rushed, consolidated without scrutiny, and adopted without full disclosure, public confidence inevitably erodes. This approach does not reflect deliberative lawmaking. It reflects a troubling departure from the transparency and accountability that electoral reform demands,” the statement partly reads.

Despite its earlier observations, the coalition also acknowledged some of the changes introduced in the new electoral laws and how they tend to change the trajectory of the election system in the country. Some of the amended parts of the electoral laws are

“Downloadable Voter Card (Section 18): The provision allowing a downloadable voter card from INEC’s website will increase voter participation and reduce disenfranchisement often associated with missing or unissued voter cards.

“Disability-Inclusive Voter Registration (Section 9): For the first time in Nigeria’s electoral history, the voter register is required to be disaggregated by disability type. This is a significant advance in line with Nigeria’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). We call on INEC to work closely with the National Commission for Persons with Disabilities (NCPWD) and disability inclusion organisations to ensure this provision is operationalised with dignity and accuracy.

“Enhanced Penalties for Result Falsification (Sections 62, 71): Returning officers who deliberately falsify results now face a mandatory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. Presiding officers who fail to sign result sheets face mandatory 3-year imprisonment. These are among the strongest anti-fraud sanctions in Nigeria’s legislative history and represent a commitment to accountability that we strongly support.”

However, the CSOs raised concerns that the Electoral Act 2026 contains some significant flaws that will undermine electoral integrity, entrench incumbency advantage, and exclude millions of Nigerians from meaningful political participation. Some of them include “Electronic transmission of results: Section 60(3) mandates electronic transmission but includes a proviso: if transmission ‘fails as a result of communication failure,’ the physical EC8A form becomes the primary source for collation. This language is unchanged from the version civil society flagged as dangerous. ‘Communication failure’ is undefined. There is no independent verification mechanism. There are no consequences for deliberate sabotage disguised as technical failure. The 2023 elections demonstrated how this ambiguity can be exploited. This loophole will be tested again in 2027, and the Act provides no protection.

“Compressed Timelines for key electoral activities: The review of timelines for the release of notice of elections (from 360 days to 300 days), submission of list of candidates (180 days to 120 days) and INEC publication of list of candidates (150 days to 60 days) increases logistics risk and puts the electoral system under pressure. For instance, shorter timelines for publishing a list of candidates will affect the production of sensitive materials like ballot papers.

“Restricting the filing of reports to INEC officials to activate the review of election results: Section 65 of the Electoral Act empowers INEC to review election results within seven days where declarations are made under duress or in violation of procedures for result collation prescribed in the Act. The Act provides that all reviews of elections shall be conducted only when a report is filed by an INEC official. This provision bars political parties, candidates, accredited observers, and their agents from activating the review process, even where they tender compelling evidence of a manipulated and unlawful results declaration.  Restricting the power of review to reports filed by INEC officials, some of whom may be complicit, is against the spirit behind the power of review vested in INEC.

“Section 75(6) imposes a ₦50 million administrative fee for new political party registration. This is not administrative cost recovery; it is a financial moat designed to exclude grassroots movements, youth-led parties, and non-elite political formations from formal competition. It is anti-democratic and anti-constitutional. Political pluralism is a right, not a privilege reserved for those with access to extraordinary capital.

“Mode of party primaries: Section 84 restricts parties to only two options for candidate nomination: direct primaries or consensus. By removing the option of indirect primaries, which, when properly regulated, can offer a more structured and less chaotic selection process, the Act reduces flexibility and pushes parties towards methods that are highly vulnerable to vote-buying (direct primaries) or godfather manipulation”.

Addressing the next step of action, the CSOs called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately “Issue a Revised 2027 Election Timetable Without Delay: In light of the new 300-day notice requirement under the Electoral Act 2026, INEC must urgently publish a revised timetable and schedule for the 2027 general elections. Certainty in electoral timelines is essential for political parties, candidates, civil society, security agencies, and voters to prepare adequately.

“Publish Comprehensive Regulations Under Section 151: INEC must immediately issue clear and detailed regulations addressing:The definition and threshold for IReV “communication failure,” including transparent verification procedures; Standards for monitoring, observing, and certifying political party primaries; Disability-inclusive voter registration procedures, ensuring full compliance with constitutional guarantees of equality and inclusion.

“Regulatory ambiguity at this stage will only invite disputes and litigation later.Conduct a Nationwide IReV Transmission Simulation: INEC should organize a national simulation exercise of IReV electronic transmission across all 176,866 polling units, with independent observers present.

The Commission must publish a comprehensive technical report detailing Success and failure rates; Geographical distribution of connectivity gaps; Identified vulnerabilities, and Concrete remediation plans ahead of 2027. Call to Political Parties

“Commit Publicly to Defending Electronic Transmission: Political parties must refuse to exploit any ambiguity surrounding IReV transmission. Parties should publicly commit that their agents will: Insist on electronic transmission at every polling unit; Document and report suspicious “communication failures” in real time; and Escalate concerns through lawful channels. Electoral integrity cannot dependsolely on the Commission; parties must demonstrate institutional responsibility,” the statement said.

The coalition also called on the National Assembly to “publish the Signed Electoral Act 2026 Immediately: The National Assembly must promptly publish the final version of the Electoral Act 2026 as signed into law to ensure public awareness, legal clarity, and stakeholder engagement.”

Please follow and like us: