By Ugo Inyama
A Nigerian can transfer money on a phone and receive confirmation within seconds. Yet after spending hours in the sun to vote, the same person may spend days searching for their polling unit result and wondering whether it entered the final count.
An election is more complicated than a bank transfer. Nobody disputes that. But a citizen who has voted deserves to know what happened afterwards.
That is the question INEC must answer before 2027.
On election morning, people leave their homes with hope. Some arrive before the officials. They wait for materials, endure the heat and remain patient when voting starts late. Many stay behind for the counting because they want to hear the figures themselves.
The votes are counted. Results are announced. Party agents collect their copies. At that point, everyone present knows what happened at that polling unit.
Then the result leaves.
It passes through collation centres, where figures are added together until a winner emerges. This is where many Nigerians begin to worry. Will the figures remain the same? Will the result appear on the portal? If something changes, will anyone explain why?
People should not have to rely on a party spokesman to tell them whether their votes counted. They should be able to check.
We have spent too many elections arguing about what happened between the polling unit and the final declaration. That uncertainty gives room to people who manipulate results. It also allows candidates who lose fairly to make allegations they cannot support.
A process that people can follow would help expose both.
Before the 2023 elections, BVAS and the INEC Result Viewing Portal raised expectations. Nigerians hoped technology would make it harder to alter results without leaving evidence.
When presidential result uploads were delayed, voters kept refreshing the portal. They wanted to see the results they had watched officials count. The absence of that information created anxiety, and explanations struggled to overcome the suspicion that followed.
INEC should take that experience seriously. Public confidence is difficult to recover once people believe they have been misled.
The Electoral Act 2026 requires electronic transmission of polling unit results to IReV after the prescribed signing and stamping of Form EC8A. Where communication failure makes transmission impossible, the signed paper form remains the primary source for collation and declaration. (placng.org)
That fallback needs clear procedures.
Who records the failure? Who verifies what happened? What evidence is retained? How is the paper result protected while transmission remains impossible?
These questions should be answered before election day, when there is time to examine the arrangements calmly.
Anyone who uses a phone in Nigeria knows that network problems are real. But because they are familiar, they should be planned for. INEC should demonstrate how officials will retain results, record attempted uploads and account for delays.
“Network failure” should begin an explanation, rather than close the matter.
Buying equipment is only part of the job. Officials must know how to use it, follow the procedures and account for their decisions. Where an official deliberately breaches those procedures, there must be consequences.
INEC should publish its transmission and contingency arrangements early, submit its systems to independent technical scrutiny and test them under difficult conditions. Accredited observers and political parties should have meaningful opportunities to examine the preparations, with appropriate security safeguards.
The details matter. A replacement device should be recorded. A correction should show the original figure, who changed it and why. Polling unit results should remain traceable as they move through collation.
Communication matters just as much. If a system fails, INEC should identify the affected locations, explain the problem and provide regular updates. Leaving people staring at a blank portal invites rumours, especially when political tensions are already high.
The Commission’s independence will also be tested when powerful people demand exceptions. A governor may object. A party may apply pressure. An influential candidate may want a disputed result hurried through.
Officials must follow the same rules whoever benefits.
Political parties have their own part to play. Too often, they condemn conduct in one state and defend it in another. Their position depends on whether they are winning.
A party that demands transparency must accept what transparency reveals, including defeat.
Vote buying requires the same consistency. We readily condemn the voter who accepts money, but what happens to those who supply the funds and organise the purchase? Accountability must reach them too.
Courts will remain necessary. But Nigerians should not routinely have to wait for litigation to understand how polling unit figures became a declared result. The evidence should be available while the process unfolds.
INEC cannot persuade every losing candidate to concede. It can give citizens enough reliable information to assess the claims made in their name.
The person who stood in the sun has already fulfilled their responsibility. INEC owes that voter a clear account of what happened next.
By 2027, following a vote from the polling unit to the final declaration should be an ordinary part of a Nigerian election.
*Ugo Inyama
Email: Ugo@africandgc.org
Website: www.africandgc.org