Nigerian Senate Passes Electoral Act Amendment Bill After Clash, Stormy Debate On Electronic Transmission

Proceedings took a dramatic turn when Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a division on Clause 60, triggering a rowdy session in the upper chamber.

The Nigerian Senate on Tuesday passed the Electoral Act, 2022 (Repeal and Re-Enactment) Bill 2026, following hours of tense deliberations, procedural disputes, and a heated row over Clause 60, which deals with the electronic transmission of election results.

Proceedings took a dramatic turn when Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a division on Clause 60, triggering a rowdy session in the upper chamber.

However, the demand immediately split the chamber and exposed deep divisions among lawmakers over the future of electronic voting processes in Nigeria.

Channels Television reports that Senate President Godswill Akpabio said he was under the impression that the demand for a division on the clause had earlier been withdrawn.

His position, however, was fiercely contested by opposition senators, who insisted that the issue was still alive and must be subjected to a formal vote.

Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin intervened, citing Order 52(6) of the Senate Standing Orders, and argued that it would be procedurally out of order to revisit any provision already ruled upon by the Senate President.

His submission only fueled further uproar, during which Senator Sunday Karimi was seen briefly confronting Abaribe on the Senate floor.

Amid the chaos, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele reminded lawmakers that he had earlier sponsored the motion for rescission of the bill’s passage, stressing that all prior decisions of the Senate on the matter had been nullified.

According to him, Senator Abaribe’s demand for a division was therefore consistent with the motion already adopted by the chamber.

Akpabio, in his remarks, suggested that Abaribe’s insistence on a division was aimed at publicly demonstrating his position on electronic transmission of results to Nigerians.

He nevertheless sustained the point of order, after which Abaribe rose in protest and was urged to formally move his motion.

Rising under Order 72(1), Abaribe specifically called for a division on Clause 60(3), objecting to the provision that allows Form EC8A to be relied upon where electronic transmission of results fails.

He proposed the outright removal of the clause permitting manual transmission of results in the event of network failure, arguing that such a loophole could undermine electoral transparency.

During the division, Akpabio directed senators who supported the proviso to stand, followed by those opposed to it. Fifteen opposition senators rose against the clause, while 55 senators voted in favour, effectively retaining the controversial provision.

Earlier in the session, Senate proceedings had been temporarily stalled as lawmakers commenced clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, following 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 proposed legislation.

As Akpabio read out the clauses for deliberation, Clause 60 again became a flashpoint when Abaribe raised a point of order, leading to murmurs across the chamber and intense consultations at the Senate President’s desk. This was followed by a brief closed-door meeting.

Before rescinding the earlier passage of the Electoral Act, senators expressed concerns over the timing of the 2027 general elections and several technical inconsistencies in the bill. Rising again under Order 52(6), Bamidele moved that the Senate reverse its earlier decision and return the bill to the Committee of the Whole.

He explained that the move followed an announcement by the Independent National Electoral Commission fixing the 2027 general elections for February 2027, after consultations with National Assembly leadership.

Bamidele noted that stakeholders had raised concerns that the proposed date conflicted with Clause 28 of the bill, which mandates that elections be held at least 360 days before the expiration of tenure.

He further warned that elections scheduled during Ramadan could adversely affect voter turnout, logistics, stakeholder participation, and the overall inclusiveness and credibility of the electoral process.

The motion also drew attention to 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.

Lawmakers noted that the issues affected cross-referencing, serial numbering, and the internal consistency of the legislation.