The Senate clarified on Thursday that it did not reject the electronic transmission of election results before passing the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, contrary to widespread media reports.
The clarification comes less than 24 hours after the upper house faced criticism on Wednesday for rejecting plans for electronic results transmission and a 10-year ban on vote buys and other electoral violators.
Shortly after the reports went viral, Senate President Godswill Akpabio denounced them as misleading.
He also stated that legislators continued to use electronic transfer as outlined in the 2022 Electoral Act, citing the need to prevent legal and operational problems.
Former Senate Minority Leader Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe told journalists on Thursday that the caucus felt forced to correct what he called a widespread misunderstanding of Wednesday’s plenary procedures.
“Since yesterday, the media has been awash with reports suggesting that the Senate rejected the electronic transmission of election results. That is not correct,” Abaribe said.
“To put the record straight, the Senate did not—I repeat, did not—reject electronic transmission of results as provided for in the 2022 Electoral Act.”
He explained that the Senate enacted legislation for the electronic transmission of results, a position that was also clarified by the Senate President during plenary.
Abaribe emphasized that senators’ public trust stems from the confidence placed in them by their constituents and that the caucus felt it was vital to address the matter for the sake of transparency.
“We came here under the trust of our senatorial districts. When it appears that our actions have been misunderstood, it becomes necessary to clarify exactly what happened,” he said.
He described the legislative process that led to the decision, which began with a combined Senate-House committee on electoral concerns.
According to him, the joint committee conducted many retreats both inside and outside of Abuja, with the Independent National Electoral Commission and civil society organizations present.
“At the end of those retreats, everyone agreed that electronic transmission of results was the way to go. That position was reflected in the reports presented to both chambers,” he said.
He also mentioned that the process included long debates, public hearings, and consultations, and that electronic results transmission was a key, non-negotiable requirement.
Following the submission of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters report, Abaribe stated that an ad hoc committee was formed to further study the findings.
Senator Sadiq Umar chaired the Ad Hoc Committee, which delivered its findings and held a closed-door session to debate.
“The closed session was held to tidy up all outstanding issues so that when we returned to plenary, the bill could be passed without rancor,” he explained.
According to him, the Senate Electoral Committee, the Ad Hoc Committee, and senators in executive session unanimously agreed on Section 65 of the law, which provides for electronic transmission of results.
“At plenary yesterday, we passed the electronic transmission of results. However, because of movement and noise in the chamber, it appeared to some that something went wrong,” he said.
Abaribe went on to say that senators later sought confirmation and were reassured, stressing that video recordings also show the Senate President confirming that electronic transfer of results was approved.
The senator went on to explain that a harmonization committee was formed due to disparities in the House and Senate versions of the bill on subjects such as timing.
“The role of the harmonization committee is to reconcile differences between both versions and produce a single document for presidential assent,” he said.
However, he mentioned that the Senate has not yet adopted the votes and proceedings, a procedural requirement before harmonization can commence.
“After plenary yesterday, we adjourned without adopting the votes and proceedings. Under our rules, harmonization cannot begin without that step,” he explained.
Abaribe stated that the Senate would reconvene to adopt the votes and proceedings, emphasizing the need of appropriately reflecting the provision for electronic transmission of results.
“Only after that can the harmonization committee meet. At harmonization, you either adopt the House version or the Senate version—nothing else,” he said.
He stressed that what the Senate passed was the electronic transmission of results in real time.
“This is not a party matter,” Abaribe added. “Senators across party lines agree on this because transparent, free, and fair elections are the foundation of democracy. If results are not transparent or the process is distorted, then it is not a democracy.”
Responding to inquiries about why an ad hoc committee was formed despite the work of the standing committee, opposition lawmakers stated that the Senate has the ability to govern its internal processes, noting that committee members were present to clarify matters during debates.
They insisted that the Senate leadership would ensure that proper process was followed and that the final product reflected the desire of the chamber.
The caucus concluded by stating that no harmonization can take place legally until the Senate passes the Votes and Proceedings Act, which confirms electronic transmission of election results.
